Siler v. Monroe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-05794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Siler v. Monroe, Judge Halpern ordered Marshals service for two identified defendants and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Michael D. Siler, Correction Officer Pepeto Munroe, and Correction Officer Edwin Lopez; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to handle service.
What happened
Siler v. Monroe concerns Michael D. Siler’s lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law against correctional officers and other defendants. Siler, who is incarcerated and representing himself, alleges violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court identified Officer Monroe as Correction Officer Pepeto Munroe and Officer John Doe as Correction Officer Edwin Lopez. After Siler filed an amended complaint naming them, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents and addresses needed to serve them.
Judge Halpern extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued and instructed Siler to ask for more time if service is not completed. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Siler v. Monroe · No. 7:20-cv-05794
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 28, 2020
Background
Michael D. Siler brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, while representing himself and proceeding without prepaying court fees. He alleges that the defendants violated rights protected by the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The opinion states that he is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility.
Siler’s original complaint named Officer Monroe, Officer John Doe, Officer J. Walden, Superintendent Leroy Fields, and Acting New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci. In an earlier service order, the court directed the New York State Office of the Attorney General to identify Officer Monroe and Officer John Doe and provide addresses where they could be served. The Office identified Officer Monroe as Correction Officer Pepeto Munroe and Officer John Doe as Correction Officer Edwin Lopez, both at Fishkill Correctional Facility. Siler then filed an amended complaint naming Munroe and Lopez.
Court’s action
Because Siler had permission to proceed without prepaying court fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and amended complaint. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It stated that Siler should request an extension if the amended complaint is not served within that period.
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms with Munroe’s and Lopez’s addresses, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Siler a copy of the order. Siler was instructed to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court entered the supplemental order of service and directed the Clerk and Marshals Service to take the steps necessary to serve Munroe and Lopez. It certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Siler permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The opinion does not decide whether Siler’s constitutional claims are valid.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.