Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2019

Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:19-cv-10004
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Judge Oetken ordered Marshals service after allowing Alexander to proceed without paying filing fees.

Who this affects

Jeriel Alexander, who may rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Private Protective Services, Inc.; the Clerk of Court and Marshals Service were directed to prepare and carry out service.

What happened

In Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc., Jeriel Alexander, representing himself, alleged that the defendant discriminated against him on October 3, 2019. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare a summons and paperwork so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve Private Protective Services, Inc. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and told Alexander to request more time if service is not completed by then.

Judge J. Paul Oetken also directed the Clerk to mail Alexander this order and an information package. The court denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred or whether Alexander’s claims have merit.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10004
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Dec. 3, 2019

Background

Jeriel Alexander brought this self-represented action against Private Protective Services, Inc., alleging that the company discriminated against him on October 3, 2019. The court had previously granted Alexander permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion describes the applicable screening rules for such cases, including dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The order does not state that the court dismissed any claim or decide the discrimination allegations.

Service of the lawsuit

Because Alexander was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin in the ordinary way because Alexander could not serve the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The court therefore extended the time for service to 90 days after the summons is issued.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Private Protective Services, Inc. The order identifies the defendant’s service address as 85 Broad Street, 27th Floor, Suite 133, New York, New York 10004. Alexander was told to notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the Clerk to mail Alexander a copy of the order and an information package and to arrange the documents needed for service. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion is an order concerning service and appeal-fee status; it does not resolve the merits of Alexander’s discrimination claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.