Zeng v. City of New York

Background

Xiamin Zeng, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. The opinion states that the court previously allowed Zeng to proceed without paying filing fees. It also states that the court previously dismissed portions of the complaint while allowing Zeng to amend those claims, and otherwise directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve properly named defendants.

Zeng then filed a Second Amended Complaint naming 17 defendants: the City of New York; four defendants associated with the Rikers Island Rose M. Singer Center; four New York City Police Department defendants; two New York City Housing Authority defendants; and six individuals named in the court’s earlier service order.

Service and Case Management

Because Zeng was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court explained that Zeng could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Zeng should request an extension.

The court requested that the Rikers defendants waive service. It directed the Clerk of Court to complete service forms for Dennis E. Gray, Rhonda O’Reilly Bovell, Patrick Lynaugh, Gregory Russ, and Vito Mustaciuolo, and to send the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court also ordered the New York City Law Department to provide, within 60 days, an appropriate service address for Defendant Iwenofu. The Law Department was separately ordered to consult with the New York Police Department to identify a service address for Defendant Estavillo and, in the same response, identify the full names of the Rikers defendants and Defendant Estavillo.

The court stayed, meaning paused, briefing on the defendants’ expected motion to dismiss until further order. The stated reason was to allow time for the Law Department to comply and for the Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

Conclusion and Effect

The order did not decide whether Zeng’s civil-rights claims were legally valid. Instead, it addressed service of process, assistance in identifying defendants, and the timing of a possible motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department, mail the order to Zeng and defense counsel, and carry out the service-related instructions.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of such an appeal.