Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2021

Edwards v. Mangion

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-07370
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Edwards v. Mangion, Judge Briccetti ordered new service efforts for six defendants and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Who this affects

Clint Edwards and the six defendants—Jeremy Mangion, Nathaniel Rawicki, Adam Shaner, Ashlyn Morse, William J. Walsh, and Christopher Meltsakos—were affected by the renewed service instructions; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to carry them out.

What happened

In Edwards v. Mangion, Clint Edwards, representing himself and without paying filing fees, alleged that six defendants violated his constitutional rights. Earlier attempts to serve the defendants failed because the medical facility and Westchester County would not accept service for them.

The court received information from Westchester Medical Center about where the defendants could be served. It therefore directed the Clerk of Court to prepare new service forms and summonses and give the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals could try to serve all six defendants.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Edwards fee-free status for an appeal. This order addressed service of the lawsuit rather than deciding the constitutional claims.

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
June 10, 2021

Background

Clint Edwards, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed a complaint alleging that Jeremy Mangion, Nathaniel Rawicki, Adam Shaner, Ashlyn Morse, William J. Walsh, and Christopher Meltsakos violated his constitutional rights.

The court had previously directed the Clerk of Court to prepare summonses and forms for the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals could serve the six defendants. Those initial service attempts were unsuccessful because the legal department refused to accept the papers at the medical facility and stated that process should be addressed to the physicians’ addresses.

The court then directed service through the Westchester County Law Department. That attempt also failed because none of the defendants was a Westchester County employee. The court later ordered Westchester County Medical Center to provide addresses where the defendants could be served. The Medical Center’s Department of Risk Management stated that it would accept service in this matter for Mangion, Rawicki, Shaner, and Morse, and it provided addresses for Walsh and Meltsakos.

Ruling

To allow Edwards to try service again through the U.S. Marshals Service, the court instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service process form for each defendant, issue a summons listing the defendants, and deliver the required paperwork to the Marshals. The order included new service addresses in an appendix.

The court also certified under the statute governing fee waivers in federal cases 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. The order did not decide whether the defendants violated Edwards’s constitutional rights.

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.