Zappin v. Supple
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-05602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zappin v. Supple, Judge Schofield directed service steps for the pro se plaintiff and warned that missed deadlines could lead to dismissal.
Anthony Zappin must complete the required service steps or request an alternative or extension by the stated deadlines; the defendants are to be served; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service must carry out the specified administrative and service tasks.
What happened
Zappin v. Supple is an order about serving the defendants after Anthony Zappin filed an amended complaint and received permission to proceed without paying court fees.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to send Zappin a service form for each defendant. He had 30 days to return the forms or request that summonses be issued to him, and 120 days after summonses were issued to complete service or request more time. The court warned that missing these deadlines could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also referred the case to Judge Fox for general pretrial matters and motions that could resolve the case. The order did not decide the claims' merits.
The detailed version
- Zappin v. Supple · No. 1:20-cv-05602
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 27, 2020
Background
Anthony Zappin, proceeding without a lawyer and with permission to proceed without paying court fees, filed an amended complaint. He also filed a motion asking the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Order
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to send Zappin one U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, known as a USM-285 form, for each defendant. Within 30 days after the order, Zappin had to complete and return the forms. If he did not want to use the Marshals Service, he had to notify the court in writing within the same 30-day period and ask that a summons be issued directly to him.
After receiving completed forms, the Clerk was ordered to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve each defendant. Regardless of which service method Zappin chose, he had to complete service within 120 days after the summons was issued. The order stated that the court may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute if Zappin neither returned the forms nor requested a summons within 30 days, or if he neither completed service nor requested an extension within 120 days.
The court also referred the action to Judge Fox for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions, meaning motions that could resolve the case. The Clerk was directed to mail Zappin the order, an information package, and the USM-285 forms; close Docket No. 13; and reopen the action.
Disposition and Significance
The order set procedures and deadlines for service of process. It did not decide whether Zappin's claims were legally valid or reach the merits of the dispute. The order also did not itself dismiss the action; it stated that dismissal may occur if the service-related deadlines are missed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses service, deadlines, and case administration without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.