Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-04392
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY, Judge Moses arranged service of the complaint and summons and addressed returned mail, without deciding the claims.
The order affected pro se plaintiff Abraham Cruz, defendants Suzanne Hastings and William Ryan, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service by setting service procedures, addressing returned mail, and limiting fee-free appeal status for this order.
What happened
Abraham Cruz, who is representing himself and is incarcerated in Pennsylvania, sued I.C.M. Manhattan, NY, and others over alleged constitutional and state-law violations connected to his earlier detention at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying fees in advance and had issued a Third Amended Complaint.
The court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Suzanne Hastings and William Ryan. It extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued and explained that Cruz must ask for more time if service is not completed. The court also noted that Hastings was retired and that officials could not identify a nurse named Maria Manning, so the earlier service order was amended.
The April 30 order addressed mail that was returned as refused or unable to be forwarded and sent Cruz another copy of the amended service order. Judge Barbara Moses reminded Cruz to keep informed about the case and to notify the court of any address change. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY · No. 1:20-cv-04392
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
Abraham Cruz, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against individuals affiliated with the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, where he was formerly detained. The opinion states that he alleged violations of constitutional and state-law rights. He was granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, although prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee under the statute cited by the court.
On April 2, 2021, the court issued an amended service order concerning Cruz’s Third Amended Complaint. The earlier order had directed service on Suzanne Hastings and Maria Manning at an incorrect location and on William Ryan at his last-known address. The amended order explained that Hastings was retired and that the United States Attorney had been unable, despite reasonable efforts, to identify a nurse named Maria Manning. The amended order therefore directed service on Hastings and Ryan through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Service Instructions
Because Cruz was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The court extended the time for serving the Third Amended Complaint until 90 days after the summons was issued. It stated that Cruz should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.
The Clerk was instructed to complete a U.S. 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 the documents needed to complete service. The service addresses for Hastings and Ryan were to be provided to the Clerk and Marshals Service outside the public filing process.
April 30 Order and Disposition
The Clerk had mailed the April 2 amended service order to Cruz at his last-known address. The mailing was returned undelivered with markings stating “FAILED AUTHENTICATION” and “RETURN TO SENDER — REFUSED — UNABLE TO FORWARD.” The court said it was uncertain whether the prison or Cruz had refused delivery. It attached another copy of the amended service order and reminded Cruz that he must stay informed about the case, including by reading court papers sent to him. The Clerk was directed to mail Cruz a copy of the April 30 order.
The court also stated that Cruz must notify it in writing of any address change and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide whether Cruz’s underlying claims were legally valid.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.