Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-04392
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY, Judge Moses updated service instructions but did not decide Cruz’s constitutional or state-law claims.
Abraham Cruz, Suzanne Hastings, William Ryan, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service were directly affected by the amended service instructions; the order did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY, Abraham Cruz, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued people affiliated with the Metropolitan Correctional Center over alleged constitutional and state-law violations. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying fees upfront.
The court learned that Suzanne Hastings was retired and that the United States Attorney could not identify a nurse named Maria Manning. Because Cruz could rely on the court and federal marshals to serve process, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Moses amended the service order and directed the Clerk to prepare forms, issue summonses, and give the necessary documents to the Marshals Service for service on Hastings and William Ryan. The order did not decide Cruz’s underlying claims, and it denied permission to appeal without paying fees for this order.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY · No. 1:20-cv-04392
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 2, 2021
Background
Abraham Cruz, who is incarcerated in a state correctional institution in Pennsylvania and is proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, brought this action against individuals affiliated with the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, New York. He alleges violations of constitutional and state-law rights. The court had previously granted Cruz permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying court fees upfront, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under federal law.
The court had issued an earlier service order directing service of Cruz’s Third Amended Complaint and summonses on Suzanne Hastings, Maria Manning, and William Ryan. Since then, the court learned that Hastings was retired and that the United States Attorney could not identify anyone named Maria Manning despite reasonable efforts. The record states that the Marshals Service had received the service materials under the earlier order.
Amended Service Order
Because Cruz was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, he was entitled to rely on the court and the United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the deadline for serving the Third Amended Complaint until 90 days after the summons is issued. The opinion states that, if service is not completed by then, Cruz should request an extension of time.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a United States Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Hastings and Ryan, mark the forms for service on the United States, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with this order and the other documents needed to serve those defendants. The order also states that the service addresses for Hastings and Ryan, who are described as retired, would be provided to the Clerk and Marshals Service privately.
Other Directions and Disposition
Cruz must notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the opinion states that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk was directed to mail Cruz a copy of the order.
Judge Barbara Moses issued and signed this amended order of service. The order addressed service and appeal-fee issues; it did not decide the merits of Cruz’s constitutional or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.