Harden v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-03839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Harden v. Doe, Judge Briccetti corrected a defendant’s name, ordered service through the Marshals, and denied appeal fee status.
Paul Harden, Sergeant Sahad, and Lorie Badger. The order changes the docket to identify Sergeant Sahad in place of Sergeant Siheed and directs the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service on Sahad.
What happened
In Harden v. Doe, Paul Harden, representing himself and without paying the filing fee, sued Sergeant Siheed and Lorie Badger under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations.
After service on Sergeant Siheed failed because he no longer worked at the listed address, the Attorney General’s Office told the court that his correct spelling was Sahad and provided a service address. The court therefore directed the clerk to replace Sergeant Siheed with Sergeant Sahad on the docket and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also stated that Harden must ensure service within 90 days after the summons is issued and denied fee-free status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
The detailed version
- Harden v. Doe · No. 7:19-cv-03839
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
Paul Harden, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The opinion identifies the defendants as Sergeant Siheed and Lorie Badger.
The court had previously directed service of Harden’s second amended complaint on the two named defendants. The service receipt for Sergeant Siheed was returned without service, with a notation that he no longer worked at the listed address. The court then asked the New York Attorney General’s Office either to accept service for Sergeant Siheed, provide an address where he could be served, or provide other information that could help complete service.
Court’s action
The Attorney General’s Office informed the court that the defendant’s correct spelling was “Sahad” and supplied an address. The court directed the clerk to terminate Sergeant Siheed from the docket and add Sergeant Sahad as a defendant. It also directed the clerk to complete the U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue a summons listing Sergeant Sahad, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve him.
The court stated that Harden was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons was issued and for requesting an extension if necessary. It also instructed Harden to notify the court in writing of any address change and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition and effect
This was an order addressing identification and service of a defendant, not a decision on whether Harden’s constitutional claims were valid. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Harden permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to mail Harden a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.