Petties v. Smalls
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-04350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Petties v. Richardson, Judge Carter ordered the Clerk and Marshals Service to serve the identified defendant in Petties’s civil-rights case.
The order affects self-represented plaintiff Timothy Derome Petties by arranging service through the U.S. Marshals Service, and Correction Officer Jason Richardson, who is to be served.
What happened
In Petties v. Richardson, Timothy Derome Petties brought a self-represented lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying court fees, and the City later provided information identifying Correction Officer Jason Richardson and an address for service.
Because Petties was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court said he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Richardson. The court also extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summons was issued.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the required service form, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Petties’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Petties v. Smalls · No. 1:20-cv-04350
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
Timothy Derome Petties, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed Petties to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
The court first requested that Correction Officer Richardson waive service of the summons. That request was returned without being completed because “Richardson” was considered a common name. The court then directed the New York City Law Department to provide information identifying the officer. After receiving more time, the City identified Correction Officer Jason Richardson and provided an address where service could be made, while stating that it was not authorized to accept service for him.
Service ruling
The court explained that a plaintiff allowed to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require service within 90 days after filing the complaint, the court extended the service period because Petties could not serve the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and directed that a summons be issued. The court stated that the extended period would run for 90 days after the summons was issued.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Richardson’s address, issue a summons, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service so it could serve Richardson. Petties was told to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue the summons and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service. The order addressed service of process; it did not decide the merits of Petties’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.