Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-03347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, Magistrate Judge Cott ordered the City Law Department to find a service address for Defendant Gorritz.
The order affected Plaintiff Alexander Williams, Defendant Gorritz, and the New York City Law Department, which was directed to obtain and provide service information.
What happened
In Alexander Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, the court addressed efforts to serve Defendant Gorritz with the lawsuit. The City reported that an earlier service waiver had been filed by mistake because Gorritz had already retired.
The court ordered the New York City Law Department, which represents and acts as the agent for the Department of Correction, to find an address where Gorritz could be served and give that information to the court by December 4, 2020. The court said it would issue another service order after receiving the information. The Law Department could ask that the address be filed for court viewing only if confidentiality was a concern.
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott issued the order on November 20, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:19-cv-03347
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 20, 2020
Background
The court had previously asked Defendant Gorritz to waive service of summons. A waiver was returned as executed on August 5, 2020, but another waiver was later returned unexecuted. The City stated that it had accidentally filed the executed waiver and then discovered that Gorritz had retired.
The opinion states that Plaintiff Alexander Williams was proceeding without a lawyer. Under Valentin v. Dinkins, the court explained that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court's assistance in obtaining service information for a defendant.
Order
The court ordered the New York City Law Department, identified as the attorney for and agent of the New York City Department of Correction, to determine an address where Defendant Gorritz could be served. The Law Department was ordered to provide the information to the court by December 4, 2020. After receiving it, the court stated that it would issue a follow-up order concerning service.
The court also stated that, if disclosing a home address created confidentiality concerns, the Law Department should ask that the filing containing the address be docketed for court viewing only.
Disposition and scope
This was an order concerning service of process. It did not resolve the claims against the defendants or decide the merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.