Washington v. City of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-00601
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Washington v. City of New York, Judge Oetken ordered Marshals service for three defendants after screening Gregory Washington’s second amended complaint.
Gregory Washington and the three defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint—Brigitte Fortune, Edward Delrio, and G. Bubb—were affected by the service instructions.
What happened
Washington v. City of New York concerns Gregory Washington’s second amended complaint, which named Brigitte Fortune, Edward Delrio, and G. Bubb as defendants.
The court screened the complaint and found that service on those three defendants was appropriate. Washington was proceeding without a lawyer, and the court directed the Clerk to prepare the documents needed for service by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Judge Oetken ordered the Clerk to complete service forms using the defendants’ addresses and deliver the required paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order also said Washington must ensure service occurs within 90 days after the summons is issued and must notify the court of any address change.
The detailed version
- Washington v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-00601
- James Oetken
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
The court considered Gregory Washington’s Second Amended Complaint. The opinion says that complaint named Brigitte Fortune, Edward Delrio, and G. Bubb as defendants. The caption of the order separately lists A.L.J. Jane Doe and P.S.R. Judy Roe.
Court’s Action
The court screened the complaint and determined that service on Fortune, Delrio, and Bubb was appropriate. Service is the formal delivery of the lawsuit and related papers to the defendants.
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue a summons, and give the Marshals Service all paperwork needed to serve them. The order identifies addresses for Fortune, Delrio, and Bubb.
Requirements for Plaintiff
The order states that Washington is responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons is issued and for requesting an extension if necessary. It also requires him to notify the court in writing if his address changes. The court warned that it may dismiss the action if he fails to provide that notice.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk to complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.