Calixte v. The City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-01062
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Calixte v. The City of New York, Judge Furman deemed service complete on Rosa and Blount and denied appeal-related fee-waiver status.
Shara M. Calixte, The City of New York, Police Sergeant Christopher Rosa, and Police Special Officer Natasha Blount. The order treated Calixte’s Second Amended Complaint as served on Rosa and Blount and set the defendants’ response deadline unless counsel objected.
What happened
In Calixte v. The City of New York, Shara M. Calixte was proceeding without a lawyer, and the City’s Law Department said it could accept service for Police Sergeant Christopher Rosa and Police Special Officer Natasha Blount.
Because the Second Amended Complaint had already been sent electronically to the Law Department, the court treated it as formally served on Rosa and Blount as of October 27, 2020. The City’s counsel could object by October 28; otherwise, the defendants had three weeks to answer or otherwise respond.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order addressed service and appeal status, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Calixte v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-01062
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
Shara M. Calixte was proceeding without a lawyer. In response to the court’s October 19, 2020 order, counsel for The City of New York reported that the Law Department was willing to accept service for Police Sergeant Christopher Rosa and Police Special Officer Natasha Blount and had authorization from both defendants to do so.
Service of the Second Amended Complaint
The court noted that Calixte’s Second Amended Complaint had already been served electronically on the Law Department. The court therefore deemed the complaint served on Rosa and Blount, effective October 27, 2020.
The court allowed counsel for The City of New York to object by filing a letter by October 28, 2020. If counsel did not object, the defendants were required to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint within three weeks of the order.
Appeal-related ruling 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. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Calixte’s claims; it addressed service of process and the ability to appeal without paying the required fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.