Gunn v. Annucci
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gunn v. Annucci, Judge Halpern ordered service of Gunn’s civil-rights lawsuit but denied fee-free appeal status.
Darrell Gunn, Anthony J. Annucci, Thomas R. Griffin, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order directs the Clerk and Marshals Service to carry out service and requires Gunn to keep the court informed of address changes.
What happened
In Gunn v. Annucci, Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated, brought a lawsuit without a lawyer claiming that Anthony J. Annucci and Thomas R. Griffin violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
Because Gunn was allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and instructed Gunn to notify the court of any address change.
Judge Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses and service paperwork, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith; fee-free status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Gunn’s underlying claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-02004
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 10, 2020
Background
Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Anthony J. Annucci, identified as Acting Commissioner, and Thomas R. Griffin, identified as Superintendent, violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The opinion does not describe the specific alleged violations.
The court had previously allowed Gunn to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The court noted that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee even when granted that permission.
Service of the lawsuit
Because Gunn was permitted to proceed without paying fees in advance, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Federal procedural rules generally require service within 90 days after filing the complaint, but the court explained that Gunn could not serve the summonses and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued.
The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Gunn should request more time if service is not completed within that period. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
Other instructions and ruling
Gunn must notify the court in writing if his address changes. The court warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Gunn a copy of the order and an information package.
Judge Philip M. Halpern certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed service and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the merits of Gunn’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.