Bryant v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-07335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bryant v. City of New York, Judge Woods extended the defendants’ service deadline, requested waiver of summons, and denied fee-free appeal status.
William Bryant, the City of New York, C.O. Rojo #15335, the Clerk of Court, the New York City Department of Correction, and the New York City Law Department.
What happened
In Bryant v. City of New York, the court issued a second order about serving the City of New York and C.O. Rojo #15335. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court extended the deadline for the City and Rojo to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 to 120 days from the order’s date. It also directed the Clerk to mail Bryant an information package and asked the defendants to waive service of summons.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. He also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bryant fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Bryant v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07335
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 7, 2020
Background
William Bryant sued the City of New York and C.O. Rojo #15335. The opinion is a second order of service. It does not state the substance of Bryant’s claims.
Court’s Actions
The court extended the deadline for the City of New York and Rojo to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. The new deadline was 120 days from February 7, 2020.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Bryant a copy of the order and an information package. It also directed the Clerk to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. The court requested that the City and Rojo waive service of summons, which is the formal delivery of the lawsuit papers.
Appeal and Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal. This order addressed service and appeal status; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the case.
Result
The service deadline was extended, the Clerk was given mailing and notification instructions, the court requested waiver of service, and fee-free status for an appeal was denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.