Cortez v. Cuomo
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-00126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cortez v. Cuomo, Judge Roman ordered service through the Marshals, extended the service deadline, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Paul V. Cortez and the six defendants named in the action, because the order directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants and addressed Cortez’s service deadline and appeal-fee status.
What happened
In Cortez v. Cuomo, Paul V. Cortez, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued state corrections officials and Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. He claimed that suspending group religious services at Green Haven Correctional Facility violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First Amendment.
The court had already allowed Cortez to proceed without paying filing fees. Judge Roman ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the necessary papers on the defendants. The court also extended the deadline for service to 90 days after the summons is issued and instructed Cortez to notify the court if his address changes.
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman issued an order of service on January 11, 2021. The order did not decide whether Cortez’s claims were legally valid; it directed service and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal of the order.
The detailed version
- Cortez v. Cuomo · No. 7:21-cv-00126
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 11, 2021
Background
Paul V. Cortez, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims concern the suspension of group religious services at Green Haven. The defendants are Governor Andrew M. Cuomo; Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci; Acting Superintendent James Johnson; Jeff McCoy; James Gorman; and Marilyn Kopp.
The court had granted Cortez permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he had that permission, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint.
Service of Process
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The court extended Cortez’s service period to 90 days after the summons is issued because, as a person proceeding without prepaying fees, he could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued.
The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed for service. The court also stated that Cortez should request an extension if the complaint is not served within the applicable period. Cortez was required to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court issued an order directing service. It did not decide the merits of Cortez’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or First Amendment claims. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
The caption lists “James Gorman,” while the service instructions refer to “James O’Gorman.”
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.