Gunn v. "Bill"
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-01787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Gunn v. Sergeant “Bill”, Judge Halpern ordered re-service, granted defendants more time to respond, and required follow-up regarding two defendants.
Darrell Gunn; defendants Pietre, Lyons, Lindemann, Finn, Malark, Mazzella, Roser, Soltice, Collins, and Esposito; the Clerk of Court; the U.S. Marshals Service; and the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
What happened
In Gunn v. Sergeant “Bill”, Darrell Gunn, who is representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought an action while incarcerated. The New York State Attorney General’s Office said several defendants had been served papers from the wrong case, and that it could not confirm service on Collins or identify Esposito.
The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to re-serve Lindemann, Finn, Malark, Mazzella, Roser, and Soltice with the correct papers. It extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued and granted defendants’ request for more time to respond. The court also ordered Gunn to provide more identifying information about Esposito and required an update about whether Collins had been served.
Judge Philip M. Halpern did not decide the underlying claims. He directed the Clerk and the parties to take the specified service-related steps, gave the listed defendants 30 days to respond after service, and terminated the extension request from the docket.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. "Bill" · No. 7:20-cv-01787
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 9, 2021
Background
Darrell Gunn, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, filed an amended complaint. The New York State Attorney General’s Office requested more time to respond. It reported that Lindemann, Finn, Malark, Mazzella, Roser, and Soltice had received a summons and complaint from a different case. It also stated that it did not believe Collins and Esposito had been served and that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision could not identify Esposito because multiple officers had that name and Gunn’s amended complaint lacked other identifying information.
The docket showed that Collins and Esposito had been served with a summons and complaint on November 23, 2020. The service forms stated that “Linda Kristoferson OA1” accepted service for both defendants.
Court’s rulings
The court directed that Lindemann, Finn, Malark, Mazzella, Roser, and Soltice be served again with the correct summons and amended complaint. Because Gunn was authorized to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Gunn should request another extension. The court also instructed Gunn to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
The court granted the Attorney General’s request for an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint. Pietre, Lyons, Lindemann, Finn, Malark, Mazzella, Roser, and Soltice were ordered to respond within 30 days after Lindemann, Finn, Malark, Mazzella, Roser, and Soltice were served with the amended complaint.
For Collins, the court ordered the Attorney General’s Office to provide, within 30 days, an update on its efforts to determine whether he had been served. For Esposito, the court ordered Gunn to file, within 30 days, a letter with additional detailed and descriptive information. The Attorney General’s Office then had 30 days after receiving that information to identify the Esposito whom Gunn sought to sue and provide a service address.
Disposition and scope
The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Gunn, issue the summonses, and provide the service materials to the Marshals Service. It granted the extension request, issued the service and information directives, and instructed the Clerk to terminate the docket entry for that request. The opinion addressed service and response deadlines; it did not decide the merits of Gunn’s underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.