Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-10004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Judge Oetken ordered new service through Marshals after failed service and denied fee-free appeal status.
Jeriel Alexander and Private Protective Services, Inc.; the order directs the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to arrange service on the defendant and denies Alexander fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc. is a pro se case in which Jeriel Alexander alleges that the defendant discriminated against him on October 3, 2019.
Alexander had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, but earlier service on Private Protective Services, Inc. failed. The court therefore issued a new service order and extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Oetken directed the Clerk to prepare the service forms and summons and send them to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the defendant. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order; it did not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10004
- James Oetken
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
Jeriel Alexander brings this pro se action against Private Protective Services, Inc. He alleges that the defendant discriminated against him on October 3, 2019, in violation of his rights. The opinion does not identify the specific discrimination law or provide further details about the underlying allegations.
The court had previously granted Alexander permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Service on the defendant had failed, so the court issued this new order with updated service addresses.
Service ruling
Because Alexander was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court explained that he could not have served the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons issued. It therefore extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed by then, the opinion says Alexander should request an extension of time.
The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so it can serve Private Protective Services, Inc. The Clerk was also directed to mail Alexander a copy of the order and an information package. Alexander must notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Appeal and effect
The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Alexander permission to appeal without paying fees. This order addresses service of process and appeal-fee status; it does not decide the merits of Alexander's discrimination allegations.
Disposition
The court issued a new order of service, directed the Clerk and Marshals Service to take the steps needed to serve Private Protective Services, Inc., and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.