Linares v. Annucci
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:19-cv-11120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Linares v. Annucci, Judge Seibel ordered U.S. Marshals to serve defendants, extended service time, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Jorge L. Linares and the named defendants, including Anthony Annucci, Tina M. Stanford, and the New York State Board of Parole commissioners, were affected. The Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take service-related actions.
What happened
Jorge L. Linares, who was incarcerated, sued Anthony Annucci and New York State parole officials under a federal civil-rights law, claiming they violated his constitutional rights. He was proceeding without a lawyer and had already been allowed to bring the case without paying filing fees upfront.
The court extended the deadline for serving the defendants to 90 days after summonses were issued. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, complete service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals could serve the defendants. The court also instructed Linares to notify the court if his address changed.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the service steps and stated that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, so permission to appeal without paying fees was denied. This order did not decide whether Linares’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Linares v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-11120
- Cathy Seibel
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Jorge L. Linares, who was incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility, filed a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violations of constitutional rights. The defendants included Anthony Annucci, Tina M. Stanford, and members of the New York State Board of Parole. Linares was representing himself. On December 12, 2019, the court allowed him to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Service of the Defendants
Because Linares had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that if service was not completed within that period, Linares should request an extension of time.
The Clerk of Court was directed to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve the defendants. The court also warned that the case could be dismissed if Linares failed to notify the court of an address change.
Disposition
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Linares a copy of the order and an information package, issue the summonses, complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and deliver the documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order addressed service and appellate fee status; it did not decide the merits of Linares’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.