McDaniel v. The People of the State of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-03526
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Curtis McDaniel v. City of New York, Judge Cott ordered service of the amended complaint and extended defendants’ response deadline.
Curtis McDaniel, the defendants identified for service, the City of New York, the New York City Law Department, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Curtis McDaniel v. City of New York concerns service of McDaniel’s second amended complaint after an earlier order removed immune defendants and corrected the City’s name.
The court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve several officers and Howard Leader. Because McDaniel did not provide Officer Thomas William’s address, the City’s Law Department had to find the officer’s badge number and service address. The court also extended the City’s and Quilty’s deadline to respond until 60 days after service on the officers.
Judge James L. Cott issued the October 9, 2020 order. The court said it would schedule a telephone conference after the parties responded to discuss discovery and possible settlement.
The detailed version
- McDaniel v. The People of the State of New York · No. 1:19-cv-03526
- James Oetken
- Oct. 9, 2020
Background
Curtis McDaniel, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a second amended complaint on September 21, 2020. An October 7 order by Judge Oetken dismissed certain defendants identified as immune from the lawsuit and directed the Clerk to properly name the City of New York as a defendant. The second amended complaint was therefore ready to be served on the newly added defendants.
Service of the Complaint
Because McDaniel had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The Clerk was instructed to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Officers Gregory Welch, Daniel Howell, Patrick Fanning, Kenneth Faulkner, Bobby Wilkins, and Thomas Williams, as well as Howard Leader. The Clerk was also instructed to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve those defendants.
The order listed service addresses for all of those defendants except Officer Thomas Williams. Because McDaniel did not provide an address for Williams, the court directed the New York City Law Department, which the order identifies as attorney and agent for the New York City Police Department and Department of Correction, to determine Williams’s badge number and a service address. The Law Department had to provide that information to McDaniel and the court by November 9, 2020. The order also gave specific instructions about whether electronic service-waiver procedures or another address should be used, depending on Williams’s employment status.
Response Deadline and Next Steps
The court extended the deadline for the City and Quilty to respond to the second amended complaint until no later than 60 days after the complaint was served on the defendant officers. The court said this would give the City time to decide whether to represent the officers and to file one consolidated response for the parties it chose to represent. After responses were filed, the court planned to schedule an initial telephone conference about the timing and scope of discovery and the possibility of settlement.
Disposition
Judge James L. Cott entered an order directing service-related steps and extending the response deadline. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the second amended complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.