Martinez v. New York Police Department
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-09885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martinez v. New York Police Department, Judge Parker ordered Marshals Service to serve Officer Tunis and extended the service deadline.
Martinez, Officer Roberson Tunis, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Martinez v. New York Police Department concerns service of the lawsuit on Officer Roberson Tunis, whom the court had allowed Martinez to substitute for a previously unidentified defendant.
Because Martinez was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court said the court and U.S. Marshals Service must handle service. The court extended the deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued.
Judge Katharine H. Parker instructed the Clerk to prepare the service form, issue a summons, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. New York Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-09885
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
The court acted after an earlier report and recommendation held that Martinez’s claims against Officer Roberson Tunis were not barred by the filing deadline and allowed Martinez to substitute Tunis for the John Doe defendant. The opinion states that Martinez had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, known as proceeding in forma pauperis.
Service of the Complaint
A plaintiff generally must serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing the complaint. The court determined that Martinez could not serve Tunis before the court issued the ruling allowing the substitution and ordered that a summons be issued. The court therefore extended the service period until 90 days after the summons was issued.
Order
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Tunis. It also instructed the Clerk to issue a summons and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so it could serve Tunis. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Martinez should request an extension. This order addressed service procedures and did not resolve the merits of Martinez’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.