Hermo v. The City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-10471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hermo v. New York City, Judge McMahon removed Hermo’s electronic-service consent and ordered regular-mail delivery because he lacked computer access.
Anthony Hermo, who will receive future court documents by regular mail rather than electronic service and must keep his address updated.
What happened
In Hermo v. The City of New York, Anthony Hermo, who was representing himself, said he could not access court documents electronically because he did not have a computer. He also asked about receiving documents by mail and believed mailed court documents would be certified.
The court found it unclear why Hermo had consented to electronic service but concluded that he appeared unable to access documents electronically. It directed the Clerk of Court to remove his consent from the docket, return the form, and mail future documents to the address he provided by regular mail. The court also said it does not send orders by certified mail.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk to mail Hermo this order and an earlier order requiring him to amend his filing. The court warned that Hermo must keep his address updated and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying publicly funded appeal status.
The detailed version
- Hermo v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-10471
- Louis Stanton
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Anthony Hermo brought the action without a lawyer. He filed a form consenting to electronic service and then asked whether he could retrieve documents another way because he did not have a computer device. He also said he believed that documents mailed by the court would be certified.
Court’s actions
The court stated that it could not determine exactly what Hermo sought because it was unclear why he had consented to electronic service while lacking computer access. Because he appeared unable to access documents electronically, the court directed the Clerk of Court to remove his consent to electronic service from the docket and return the form to him. The court ordered that future documents be mailed to the address Hermo provided by regular mail and stated that court orders are not sent by certified mail.
The court also stated that Hermo was responsible for updating his address and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal if he did not comply with court orders. The Clerk was directed to mail Hermo this order and the December 13, 2019 order requiring him to amend his filing.
Appeal ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied publicly funded appeal status for an appeal from this order. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.