Calixte v. The City of New York

Background

Shara M. Calixte, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, Police Sergeant Christopher Rosa, and Police Special Officer Natasha Blount under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The opinion states that the court had previously directed service on the City and directed the City’s counsel to help identify the two officers. The City later identified Rosa and Blount, and the court directed Calixte to file a second amended complaint naming them. She did so on time.

Service of Process

The court reviewed the second amended complaint and directed service on Rosa and Blount. Because the City had already appeared, docketing the second amended complaint constituted service on the City. The Clerk was directed to issue summonses for Rosa and Blount.

Ordinarily, the Clerk or the United States Marshals Service would carry out service in a case where the plaintiff was authorized to proceed without paying filing fees. The City’s counsel had provided only an email address for service, explaining that physical locations were temporarily closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court stated that neither the Clerk nor the Marshals Service could serve defendants by email.

The court required the City’s counsel, by October 26, 2020, to file a supplemental letter either stating that the City was willing and authorized to accept service for Rosa and Blount or to serve them by email itself, or providing physical mailing addresses where the Marshals Service could serve them. The court urged counsel to accept or carry out email service because regular mail could cause delays.

Appeal-Fee Status and Disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. Judge Jesse M. Furman otherwise issued an order concerning service and related case administration; the opinion did not decide the merits of Calixte’s claims.