Chepilko v. City of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-11229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chepilko v. City of New York, Judge Carter ordered steps to arrange service on two defendants in Chepilko’s civil-rights case.
Chepilko and the two individual defendants identified for service, Michael Loeffel and Louis Barbarelli. The order also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps concerning service of the lawsuit.
What happened
Chepilko v. City of New York is a case brought without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. Chepilko alleges that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to sell photographs at Rockefeller Center. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance and had previously directed that the U.S. Marshals Service help serve the defendants.
After Chepilko reported that the Marshals Service lacked information about the case, the court instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms and an amended summons for Officer Michael Loeffel and Lieutenant Louis Barbarelli. The Clerk must provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service, which must notify the court if service is completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order on November 7, 2025. The order also said that Chepilko should request more time if service is not completed within 90 days and must notify the court if his address changes. The order did not decide whether the alleged First Amendment violation occurred.
The detailed version
- Chepilko v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-11229
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
Chepilko brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by government actors. He alleges that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to sell his photographs at Rockefeller Center. The opinion states that Chepilko is proceeding without a lawyer.
The court previously granted Chepilko permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance. In that situation, federal law and court rules provide that the plaintiff may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service of process, meaning formal delivery of the lawsuit and summons to the defendants.
Chepilko filed an amended complaint naming individual defendants. The court's earlier orders addressed service, but Chepilko later told the court that the Marshals Service said it had no information about the case.
Ruling
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Michael Loeffel and Louis Barbarelli, issue an amended summons, and deliver the documents needed for service to the Marshals Service. The court ordered the Marshals Service to notify the court if service had been completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued.
The court also stated that, if the amended complaint was not served within 90 days, Chepilko should request an extension of time. It warned that Chepilko must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide the merits of Chepilko's First Amendment claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.