Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 8, 2021

Griffin-Robinson v. Salov

Judge
Freeman
Docket
1:20-cv-02712
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Griffin-Robinson v. Salou, Judge Freeman ordered assistance serving four defendants through the U.S. Marshals Service.

Who this affects

Pro se plaintiff Sonja R. Griffin-Robinson and the four defendants who had not yet been served: Darwin Marrero, Marilin Peralta, Jacquelynn Opirhory, and Richard DiDonato.

What happened

In Griffin-Robinson v. Salou, pro se plaintiff Sonja R. Griffin-Robinson asked the court to help serve four defendants: Sergeant Darwin Marrero and Police Officers Marilin Peralta, Jacquelynn Opirhory, and Richard DiDonato.

The Marshals Service had previously tried but failed to serve those defendants because they could not be found at the addresses provided earlier. The court found that Griffin-Robinson had diligently followed up on the service problems and requested more time, and counsel for New York City provided new addresses.

Judge Debra Freeman ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare new service forms, issue a summons, and give the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve the four defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Griffin-Robinson v. Salov · No. 1:20-cv-02712
Judge
Freeman
Date
Feb. 8, 2021

Background

Pro se plaintiff Sonja R. Griffin-Robinson requested assistance serving four defendants: Sergeant Darwin Marrero, Police Officer Marilin Peralta, Police Officer Jacquelynn Opirhory, and Police Officer Richard DiDonato. The opinion states that Griffin-Robinson had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, which entitled her to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process.

The Marshals Service had previously attempted to serve each of the four defendants but could not complete service because the defendants apparently could not be located at the addresses previously provided. The court found that Griffin-Robinson had acted diligently in following up on the service problems and requesting additional time. Counsel for the City of New York provided new addresses for the four defendants.

Order

Judge Debra Freeman instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a new U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the newly provided addresses. The Clerk was also instructed to issue a summons and deliver all paperwork needed for the Marshals Service to serve Marrero, Peralta, Opirhory, and DiDonato. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.