Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 19, 2021

Edwards v. Mangion

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-07370
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Edwards v. Mangion, Judge Briccetti ordered a new attempt to serve six defendants and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Clint Edwards and the six defendants named in the order: Jeremy Mangion, Nathaniel Rawicki, Adam Shaner, Ashlyn Morse, Williams JJ Walsh, and Christopher Meltsakos.

What happened

Edwards v. Mangion is a constitutional-rights case brought by Clint Edwards, who was representing himself and had received permission to proceed without paying court fees.

Earlier service attempts on six defendants—Jeremy Mangion, Nathaniel Rawicki, Adam Shaner, Ashlyn Morse, Williams JJ Walsh, and Christopher Meltsakos—were unsuccessful because the medical facility’s legal department refused to accept the papers. The court considered a suggestion to serve them through the Westchester County Law Department.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the Clerk to prepare new service forms and summonses and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order, stating that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Edwards v. Mangion · No. 7:20-cv-07370
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Feb. 19, 2021

Background

Clint Edwards, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Jeremy Mangion, Nathaniel Rawicki, Adam Shaner, Ashlyn Morse, Williams JJ Walsh, and Christopher Meltsakos.

On February 17, 2021, the docket received process-return forms stating that service had not been completed. The forms said the medical facility’s legal department refused to accept the papers there and that the papers should instead be addressed to the physicians’ address. The court consulted its Office of Pro Se Litigation, which suggested service through the County of Westchester Law Department.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for the six defendants, issue a summons listing them, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to attempt service. The order includes a new service address for the defendants, and Chambers was directed to mail Edwards a copy of the order.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Edwards permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. This order addressed service and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the alleged constitutional-rights violations.

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.