Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2020

Rivers v. Verizon Communication of New York

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:19-cv-11554
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rivers v. Verizon Communication of New York, Judge Engelmayer ordered Marshals service after Alvin Rivers received permission to proceed without paying fees.

Who this affects

Alvin A. Rivers, Verizon Communication of New York, and the Federal Communications Commission. The order primarily directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants and requires Rivers to keep the court informed of address changes.

What happened

Rivers v. Verizon Communication of New York concerns Alvin A. Rivers’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal disability-rights law, a civil-rights statute, and state law. Rivers is representing himself and alleges that Verizon Communication of New York and the Federal Communications Commission violated his rights.

The court had allowed Rivers to proceed without paying filing fees. Because of that, the U.S. Marshals Service must serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the service forms and paperwork.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered the Clerk to issue the summons and provide the documents to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Rivers’s claims were legally valid. Rivers must notify the court if his address changes, or the action may be dismissed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rivers v. Verizon Communication of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11554
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Jan. 24, 2020

Background

Alvin A. Rivers, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims against Verizon Communication of New York and the Federal Communications Commission. He invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and following provisions; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and state law, alleging that the defendants violated his rights.

The court had previously granted Rivers permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In such cases, the court explained, the plaintiff may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint.

Service Order

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court concluded that Rivers could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. It therefore extended the service period until 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Rivers should request an extension of time.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for Verizon and the Federal Communications Commission. For the Commission, the Clerk was also instructed to mark the form for service on the United States. The Clerk was directed to issue the summons and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

Additional Direction and Effect

Rivers must notify the court in writing if his address changes. The court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer’s order addressed service of process—the formal delivery of the lawsuit papers to the defendants—and related case administration. It did not decide the merits of Rivers’s claims or determine whether either defendant violated the law.

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.