Hammock v. Rizzuto
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-04175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hammock v. Rizzuto, Judge Seibel ordered U.S. Marshals service for Hammock’s § 1983 claims and extended the service deadline.
Jesse Hammock, who must keep the court informed of address changes, and defendants Anthony Rizzuto and John Papavasiliou, who are to be served through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Hammock v. Rizzuto, Jesse Hammock, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, brought a lawsuit without a lawyer against Anthony Rizzuto and John Papavasiliou. He alleged that they unlawfully removed him from his job at the facility.
The court had already allowed Hammock to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. Because he could not serve the defendants until the court reviewed his amended complaint and issued summonses, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, prepare the required forms, and send the documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals could serve both defendants. The order did not decide whether Hammock’s allegations were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Hammock v. Rizzuto · No. 7:20-cv-04175
- Cathy Seibel
- Aug. 4, 2020
Background
Jesse Hammock brought a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Anthony Rizzuto, identified as the Food Service Administrator, and John Papavasiliou, identified as the Head Cook, unlawfully removed him from his job at Sullivan Correctional Facility.
The court had previously granted Hammock permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. In such cases, the court and the U.S. Marshals Service handle service of the summons and complaint when the plaintiff provides the information needed to identify the defendants.
Service of Process
The court explained that the usual 90-day period for serving the summons and amended complaint could not begin in the ordinary way because Hammock could not serve the defendants until the court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered summonses issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, the opinion states that Hammock should request an extension of time.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Hammock a copy of the order and an information package.
Other Requirement and Disposition
Hammock was required to notify the court in writing if his address changes. The opinion states that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk of Court to arrange service of the lawsuit on Rizzuto and Papavasiliou through the U.S. Marshals Service. The order addressed service procedures and did not resolve the merits of Hammock’s claim that he was unlawfully removed from his job.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.