Syville v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-04633
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Syville v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe ordered service and identification help for claims about shelter treatment.
Alphonso Syville, the City of New York, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Robinson, A. Brown, Paul Hargrow, the two unidentified shelter workers, HELP USA, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service were affected by the service and identification directives.
What happened
Syville v. City of New York concerns Alphonso Syville’s claims that people at Help Meyers Men’s Shelter discriminated and retaliated against him by denying services and refusing to transfer him to a single-room hotel during the COVID-19 emergency. He sued under disability and health-information laws while proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees.
The court treated Syville’s original and supplemental pleadings as the operative complaint. It ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the City of New York and several identified defendants, and directed HELP USA’s counsel to identify two shelter workers whose names were not known. Syville was then required to file an amended complaint naming those workers.
Judge Gardephe issued an order of service rather than deciding whether Syville’s claims were legally valid. The court extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Syville v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04633
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
Alphonso Syville, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and others under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. He alleged that defendants at Help Meyers Men’s Shelter discriminated and retaliated against him by denying him services and refusing to transfer him to a single-room hotel during the COVID-19 emergency. The court had already allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Operative complaint
The court received Syville’s original complaint and a later submission. Because the later submission appeared to add claims rather than replace the original complaint, the court directed the Clerk to relabel it as a supplemental pleading. The court consolidated the two pleadings and treated them together as the operative complaint—the complaint governing the action at that stage.
Service of process
Because Syville was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Robinson, A. Brown, and Paul Hargrow. The Clerk was directed to complete the required service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that Syville should request more time if service was not completed within that period. The court also required Syville to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Help identifying unnamed defendants
The court ordered counsel for HELP USA, identified as the operator of Help Meyers Men’s Shelter, to determine the identities and service addresses of “Pernal,” the food server, and “Psych Lady/Smila Kodali,” who worked at the shelter’s clinic. HELP USA’s counsel was required to provide that information to Syville and the court within 60 days.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Syville was required to file an amended complaint naming those defendants. The court stated that this amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint. The court would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to arrange service on the newly identified defendants.
Disposition
Judge Gardephe issued an order directing service and further identification of defendants. The order did not decide the merits of Syville’s discrimination, retaliation, or other statutory claims. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.