Duncan v. NYC Health & Hospitals: Harlem
Branden Duncan v. NYC Health & Hospitals: Harlem; Environmental Services, Duncan; and Environmental Services Supervisor, Octavia
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-05615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Branden Duncan v. NYC Health & Hospitals: Harlem, Judge Rochon extended Duncan’s service deadline to November 28, 2025, after finding reasonable diligence.
The order directly affected Branden Duncan by extending his deadline to serve the complaint. It also affected the named defendants by delaying the deadline for service; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Branden Duncan v. NYC Health & Hospitals: Harlem, Branden Duncan, representing himself, tried to serve the defendants but his proof of service was not accepted. The court told him to explain why service had not been completed within the required time.
Duncan said service had failed after three attempts and asked for another 90 days. He said the court’s corrected address for NYC Health & Hospitals would allow a process server to serve the complaint.
Judge Rochon granted an extension, but set November 28, 2025, as the new deadline rather than granting the requested 90 days. The court warned that failing to file proof of service, request another extension, or otherwise communicate with the court by that date might result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Duncan v. NYC Health & Hospitals: Harlem · No. 1:25-cv-05615
- Rochon
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
Branden Duncan filed the complaint on July 8, 2025, and proceeded without a lawyer. He filed three affidavits of due diligence as proof that he had served NYC Health & Hospitals: Harlem; Environmental Services, Duncan; and Environmental Services Supervisor, Octavia. The court determined that the affidavits were not sufficient proof of service, provided Duncan with a service address for NYC Health & Hospitals, and reminded him that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) required service by October 6, 2025.
After Duncan did not file proof of service, the court ordered him to explain why he had not served the defendants within 90 days or, if he believed service had occurred, to explain when and how it was made. Duncan responded that three service attempts had been unsuccessful and requested a 90-day extension so he could use a process server at the correct address.
Court’s reasoning
Rule 4(m) requires an extension when a plaintiff shows good cause. The court said that determining good cause involves weighing the plaintiff’s reasonable efforts and diligence against prejudice to the defendants. The court also explained that it had discretion to grant an extension even without good cause, considering factors such as prejudice, whether the action might be barred by the statute of limitations, whether the defendants had actual notice, and whether the plaintiff had a justifiable excuse.
The court concluded that Duncan’s affidavits, although insufficient as proof of service, demonstrated reasonable diligence in trying to serve the defendants on time.
Ruling and effect
The court granted Duncan an extension of time to serve the complaint and extended the deadline to November 28, 2025. It did not grant another 90 days under the circumstances. The court stated that Duncan could move for another extension by providing good cause. It also warned that failing to file proof of service, move for an extension, or otherwise communicate with the court by November 28, 2025, might result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The opinion did not decide the merits of Duncan’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.