Arriaga v. Otaiza

Background

Anthony Arriaga, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Joana Otaiza and Donald Venettozzi violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed Arriaga to proceed without paying court fees upfront. Because he was proceeding without those upfront payments, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve both defendants.

The Marshals Service reported that service on Otaiza was not completed. Arriaga then asked the court to arrange service at a residential address.

Service deadline

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. But because Arriaga was proceeding without upfront payment of fees and could not serve the defendants until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons, the court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons was issued. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Arriaga should request an extension.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a new U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Otaiza using this address: New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision, 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 2, Albany, New York 12226-2050. The Clerk was also directed to issue a summons and provide the Marshals Service with all paperwork needed to serve Otaiza.

If the Marshals Service could not serve Otaiza at that address, the court stated that it would issue an order directing the New York State Attorney General to identify a residential address where she could be served. The Clerk was also directed to mail Arriaga a copy of the order and an information package.

Judge Philip M. Halpern’s order concerned service of process only. It did not decide the merits of Arriaga’s constitutional-rights claims or determine whether either defendant violated the law.