Garcia v. Brann
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-01234
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Garcia v. Brann, Judge Ramos ordered steps to serve defendants in Garcia’s COVID-19 jail-protection lawsuit.
Edgar Garcia and the named defendants—Cynthia Brann, Patsy Yang, and Margaret Egan—were affected by the court’s service instructions; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take specified steps.
What happened
Garcia v. Brann concerns Edgar Garcia’s pro se lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that jail officials were not protecting him from contracting COVID-19. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court asked Commissioner Cynthia Brann to waive service. For Yang and Egan, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and carry out service, and extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued.
Judge Ramos ordered the Clerk to send Garcia the order and information materials, notify the relevant city agencies, prepare service documents, and deliver them to the Marshals Service. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide whether Garcia’s allegations were legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Brann · No. 1:21-cv-01234
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
Edgar Garcia, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that jail officials were failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. The court had already granted permission for Garcia to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
Service of Defendant Brann
The court directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that Commissioner Cynthia Brann waive service of the summons.
Service of Defendants Yang and Egan
Because Garcia was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants. The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It explained that Garcia could not have served the summonses and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Garcia should request an extension.
The Clerk was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Yang and Egan, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve them. The court also stated that Garcia must notify it in writing if his address changes and that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
This was an order concerning service of process and case administration. The court did not decide the merits of Garcia’s claim that jail officials failed to protect him from COVID-19. The Clerk was directed to mail Garcia the order and an information package, notify the specified city agencies, request Brann’s waiver of service, and deliver the necessary documents for service on Yang and Egan to the Marshals Service.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.