Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-06427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility, Judge Seibel ordered service on Lamont Williams and denied fee-free appeal status.
Marcus Cossette, Lamont Williams, and the other defendants are affected. The order arranged service on Williams, set related response deadlines, required Cossette to report address changes, and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the order.
What happened
In Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility, Marcus Cossette, who is representing himself, alleges that the defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility. He had permission to proceed without prepaying court fees, and his Third Amended Complaint named Lamont Williams, who had not been served.
The court instructed the Clerk to issue a summons and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Williams. It extended the time to serve Williams until 90 days after the summons is issued and extended all defendants’ response deadlines until Williams’s response is due. The court also warned Cossette to report any address change.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to mail the order to Cossette and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from this order. The order addressed service and related deadlines; it did not decide whether Cossette’s allegations were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility · No. 7:20-cv-06427
- Cathy Seibel
- June 11, 2021
Background
Marcus Cossette brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights. He is representing himself and is currently incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility. He alleges that the defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Cossette’s Third Amended Complaint names Lamont Williams as a defendant. Williams had not previously been served. Because Cossette was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service after the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued.
Service Order
The court extended the service deadline for Williams until 90 days after the summons is issued. It explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin in the ordinary way because Cossette could not serve the summons and complaint until the court ordered issuance of the summons. The court stated that Cossette should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue a summons for Williams, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Williams’s address, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also extended all defendants’ deadlines to respond to the Third Amended Complaint until the date Williams’s response is due.
Other Instructions and Disposition
The court instructed Cossette to notify it in writing if his address changes and warned that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so. The Clerk was directed to mail Cossette a copy of the order and record that mailing on the docket.
The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Cossette permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. This order is a procedural order about service, response deadlines, and appeal-fee status. It does not decide the merits of Cossette’s civil-rights allegations. Judge Cathy Seibel signed the order on June 11, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.