Patterson v. Colon

Background

Andre Patterson, appearing without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Correction Officer Francisco J. Colon failed to protect him from hazardous materials while Patterson was incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility. The opinion states that Patterson had been released from custody when he filed the complaint, so the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply.

The court had previously granted Patterson permission to proceed without paying filing fees. In cases proceeding without payment of fees, federal law requires the court to arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service when appropriate.

Service ruling

The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summons was issued. It explained that Patterson could not have served the summons and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered a summons issued. The court stated that Patterson should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.

The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Colon, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve Colon. The order lists Colon’s service address as Otisville Correctional Facility, 57 Sanitorium Road, Otisville, New York 10963-0008. Patterson was required to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court stated that it could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

What the order did not decide

The order concerned service of process—the formal delivery of the lawsuit to the defendant. It did not decide the merits of Patterson’s allegation that Colon failed to protect him from hazardous materials, and it did not determine whether Colon was liable.