Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2021

Spencer El Dey v. Children's Village

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:20-cv-10377
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Abdullah Spencer-El-Dey v. Children’s Village, Judge Cathy Seibel ordered U.S. Marshals service of the complaint but denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

The order affects Abdullah Spencer-El-Dey, Children’s Village, the Boy Scouts of America, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service by arranging service of the complaint and addressing fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

Abdullah Spencer-El-Dey sued Children’s Village and the Boy Scouts of America, alleging that they violated his constitutional and treaty rights and seeking damages. He alleged that a Scout leader sexually molested him while he was required to be a Boy Scout while living at Children’s Village.

The court had already allowed Spencer-El-Dey to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. Because he was proceeding this way, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and paperwork and send them to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants could be served. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued.

Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to carry out service and directed that a copy of the order and information materials be mailed to Spencer-El-Dey. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order, stating that such 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
Spencer El Dey v. Children's Village · No. 7:20-cv-10377
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Mar. 3, 2021

Background

Abdullah Spencer-El-Dey, who was representing himself and was being held at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, sued Children’s Village and the Boy Scouts of America. He alleged violations of federal constitutional rights and rights under the “Algerian/U.S. Treaty of 1815: articles 6, 7, and 16,” and sought damages.

The court understood the complaint as potentially asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, apparently based on a substantive due process theory arising from alleged sexual molestation by a Scout leader while Spencer-El-Dey was required to be a Boy Scout while residing at Children’s Village. The court also understood the complaint to assert state-law claims. The case had originally been filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Service of the Complaint

The court had previously granted Spencer-El-Dey permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. In such a case, the court explained, the plaintiff may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court therefore extended the time for service until 90 days after summonses were issued.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue summonses for Children’s Village and the Boy Scouts of America, complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms with the defendants’ service addresses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the summonses and complaint. Spencer-El-Dey 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.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk to arrange service of the complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service. It also directed the Clerk to mail Spencer-El-Dey a copy of the order and an information package.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order. The opinion did not decide the merits of Spencer-El-Dey’s constitutional, treaty, or state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.