Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2020

El Dey v. Brann

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:20-cv-07208
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In El Dey v. Brann, Judge Furman ordered steps to identify and serve several defendants in Abdullah Spencer El-Dey’s pro se case.

Who this affects

Abdullah Spencer El-Dey; the defendants whose identities or addresses remained unresolved—Felder, Tynda, Rawlingson, and Collins; the New York City Law Department; the Clerk of Court; and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

The case, Abdullah Spencer El-Dey v. Cynthia Brann, et al., involves a lawsuit brought by El-Dey, who was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island and was proceeding without a lawyer or prepaying filing fees. The court had previously added several correctional officials and employees as defendants.

The New York City Department of Correction declined to accept service for four defendants because some could not be identified, one was no longer employed there, and more information was needed about another. The court ordered El-Dey to provide additional identifying information for Felder, Tynda, and Rawlingson. It also ordered the New York City Law Department to provide Collins’s full name and a forwarding address so the U.S. Marshals Service could try to serve him.

Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on December 3, 2020. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail El-Dey a copy and required additional steps before service could be attempted on the defendants who had not been identified or located.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
El Dey v. Brann · No. 1:20-cv-07208
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 3, 2020

Background

Abdullah Spencer El-Dey brought the action while detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island. He was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. In an earlier order dated November 4, 2020, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add Correction Officers Felder, Hazel, and Fung; Deputies Tynda and McBean; Chief Jenkins; Warden Collins; and Captains Battle, Rawlingson, Terry, and Turner as defendants under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also asked these defendants to waive formal service of the summons.

On December 1, 2020, the New York City Department of Correction declined to waive service for Felder, Tynda, Collins, and Rawlingson. According to the Department, Tynda and Rawlingson did not match the names of any of its employees, Collins was no longer a Department employee, and more information was needed to identify Felder.

Court’s Directions

The court ordered El-Dey to send a letter within 30 days providing more detailed information about Felder, Tynda, and Rawlingson. Within 30 days after receiving that information, the New York City Law Department must again try to identify the defendants. If a defendant is a current or former Department of Correction employee or official, the Law Department must state that service should be made electronically under the applicable electronic-service agreement. If a person worked at a Department of Correction facility but was not a current or former Department employee, the Law Department must provide a home address where that person can be served.

The court separately ordered the Law Department, within 30 days, to provide Collins’s full name and a forwarding address by confidential letter sent directly to the judge’s chambers. After receiving that information, the court said it would issue another order directing the Clerk to issue a new summons for Collins, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service service form, and send a service package to the Marshals Service.

Disposition

This was a procedural order about identifying defendants and completing service of process; it did not decide the underlying claims. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to mail El-Dey a copy of the order and record that mailing on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.