Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 4, 2020

Henderson v. Alvarez

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:17-cv-03977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Henderson v. Alvarez, Judge Nathan ordered service of Tyrel Henderson’s civil-rights lawsuit and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Tyrel Henderson and Program Aide Southwell; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take procedural steps concerning service.

What happened

In Henderson v. Alvarez, Tyrel Henderson, representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service paperwork for Program Aide Southwell and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. Because Southwell’s home address was filed under seal, the order did not disclose it.

Judge Alison J. Nathan also directed the Clerk to mail Henderson a copy of the order and an information package. The court denied Henderson permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Henderson v. Alvarez · No. 1:17-cv-03977
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Aug. 4, 2020

Background

Tyrel Henderson, a Brooklyn resident representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. The opinion states that the court had granted Henderson’s request to proceed without paying court fees.

Service of Process

The order addressed service of the lawsuit on Defendant Program Aide Southwell. It instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return Form for Aide Southwell, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to complete service.

The City had Southwell’s home address and had filed it in a letter under seal. The court therefore did not include the address in the order and stated that it would separately provide the address to the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk was also directed to mail Henderson a copy of the order and an information package.

Appeal-Related Ruling

Judge Alison J. Nathan certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the 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 directed service and addressed appeal-related fee status; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.