Gregory Destine a/k/a/ Mrs. GoGo Destine v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-00082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gregory Destine v. The City of New York, Magistrate Judge Wang corrected Officer Joseph’s identity and arranged service; the order did not decide the claims.
Gregory Destine and Romeo Joseph, whose identity and service information were corrected; the City of New York was also a defendant, but the order did not decide the claims against any defendant.
What happened
In Gregory Destine v. The City of New York, Gregory Destine, who was representing himself and incarcerated, alleged that the City and Officer Joseph violated his federal constitutional rights and state law. He was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, but Officer Joseph had not been served because the service information was incorrect.
The court identified the defendant as Romeo Joseph, Amtrak Police Officer, Shield No. 501296, rather than the shield number listed in the complaint. Because Destine was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court said the U.S. Marshals Service would handle service. The court also explained that the deadline for service was paused while personal service by the Marshals Service was suspended.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered the Clerk to substitute Romeo Joseph’s correct identity, prepare the service form, issue a summons, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Destine’s claims were valid, and it denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Gregory Destine a/k/a/ Mrs. GoGo Destine v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00082
- Laura Swain
- July 9, 2020
Background
Gregory Destine, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated at Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, asserted that the City of New York and Officer Joseph violated his federal constitutional rights and state-law rights. The court construed the complaint as bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against state actors, and under state law.
The court had previously allowed Destine to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It also directed service of the complaint on the City and Officer Joseph. The Clerk issued a summons for Officer Joseph at the New York Police Department, but Officer Joseph had not been served. The City informed the court that the intended defendant was Amtrak Police Officer Romeo Joseph, Shield No. 501296. Destine’s complaint had identified a different shield number, 5012196.
Service ruling
The court explained that a person allowed to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. Because the service address for Officer Joseph was incorrect, the court found that he could not have been served within the ordinary 90-day period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The court also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which allows a court to add or drop a party. Because personal service by the Marshals Service was suspended under a standing order, the service deadline was paused until that suspension ended. If the suspension ended before Officer Joseph was served, the court extended the service period until 90 days after the suspension was lifted. The court stated that Destine should request another extension if service did not occur within that period.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to substitute “Romeo Joseph, Shield No. 501296” for “Officer Joseph Shield No. 5012196,” complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form with Officer Joseph’s service address, issue a summons, and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Destine a copy of the order.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Destine permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order addressed identification and service only; it did not rule on the merits of Destine’s constitutional or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.