McKins v. Pye
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-04633
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In McKins v. Pye, Judge Roman ordered steps to serve John McKins’s pro se lawsuit on the defendants.
John McKins, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and defendants Tara Pye, Joanne Russo-Lanza, and United Hebrew Soundview Senior Living, whose counsel was asked to waive service.
What happened
In John McKins v. Tara Pye, John McKins brought the case without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. That permission allowed him to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
The court asked Tara Pye, Joanne Russo-Lanza, and United Hebrew Soundview Senior Living, through their lawyers, to waive formal service of the summons. It also asked defense counsel to obtain the complaint from the court’s electronic filing system.
Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to McKins and record proof that it was sent. The order addressed service only and did not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- McKins v. Pye · No. 7:19-cv-04633
- Nelson Roman
- July 23, 2020
Background
John McKins brought this action without a lawyer. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under the statute cited by the court, a person granted that permission may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve legal papers.
Service of Process
The court requested that Tara Pye, Joanne Russo-Lanza, and United Hebrew Soundview Senior Living waive service of the summons. The order states that these defendants were represented by counsel. The court also requested that defense counsel access copies of the complaint through the court’s electronic filing system.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was requested to mail a copy of the order to McKins at the address listed in the court’s electronic filing system and to show proof of service. Judge Nelson S. Roman’s order concerned service of the lawsuit; it did not address the underlying claims or their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.