Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 13, 2021

Smith v. Gutierres

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-06086
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Smith v. Gutierres, Judge Abrams ordered U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants in Jason Smith’s civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Jason Smith and the defendants identified for service—Jimmy Gutierres, Christopher Gordan, and Kevin Viola—were affected by the court’s service instructions. The order also placed address-notification obligations on Smith.

What happened

In Smith v. Gutierres, Jason Smith, who was representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that three New York City police officers violated his constitutional rights on September 27, 2018. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare service forms for Jimmy Gutierres, Christopher Gordan, and Kevin Viola. The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve them. The court extended Smith’s service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and stated that Smith must ask for more time if service is not completed by then.

Judge Abrams also directed the Clerk to mail Smith a copy of the order and an information package. Smith must notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the case may be dismissed if he does not do so. This order addressed service of the lawsuit, not whether Smith’s constitutional claims were legally valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Smith v. Gutierres · No. 1:21-cv-06086
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 13, 2021

Background

Jason Smith, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials. He alleged that defendants Jimmy Gutierres, Christopher Gordan, and Kevin Officer—identified in the opinion as New York City Police Department officers—violated his constitutional rights on September 27, 2018. The court had previously granted Smith permission to proceed without paying court filing fees.

Service of Process

Because Smith was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the usual 90-day service period so that it would run from the date the summonses were issued, rather than from the date the complaint was filed. It stated that Smith should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.

The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses, complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Jimmy Gutierres, Christopher Gordan, and Kevin Viola. The order’s opening discussion refers to “Kevin Officer,” while its service instructions and attached service-address list refer to “Kevin Viola”; the opinion does not explain this difference.

Other Direction and Disposition

The Clerk was directed to mail Smith the order and an information package. Smith was required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action. The order did not decide the merits of Smith’s constitutional claims. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued an order directing service of the lawsuit.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.