McFadden v. City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-05508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McFadden v. City of New York, Judge Broderick lifted the stay and ordered service on four added defendants.
The order affects pro se plaintiff Denver McFadden, the four added defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service by lifting the stay and initiating the service process.
What happened
In McFadden v. City of New York, the court had previously allowed pro se plaintiff Denver McFadden to add four defendants: Dr. Erick Eiting and New York Police Department detectives Peter Lumina and Austin Morange, along with NYPD sergeant Al Cantora Ooal. The case was then stayed while McFadden faced an imminent release, and the added defendants had not been served.
The court lifted the stay after the parties addressed whether it should continue. It ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the four added defendants. No other deadlines apply until those defendants are served or the court sets new deadlines.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also advised McFadden that he must check whether service was completed and, if necessary, request more time. If service is not completed or an extension is not requested within 90 days after the summonses are issued, the court stated that it may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- McFadden v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-05508
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 24, 2022
Background
On June 18, 2020, the court granted pro se plaintiff Denver McFadden permission to amend his pleadings to add Dr. Erick Eiting, New York Police Department detectives Peter Lumina and Austin Morange, and NYPD sergeant Al Cantora Ooal as defendants. The court did not issue an order of service at that time because of the ongoing pandemic.
Before service could be ordered, McFadden asked the court to stay the case because his release was then imminent. The defendants did not oppose the request, and the court stayed the case on January 26, 2021. The case remained stayed, and the four added defendants had not been served.
Court’s Action
After directing the parties to address whether the stay should be lifted, the court ordered that the stay was vacated. The court stated that no further deadlines applied until the added defendants were served or the court entered another order setting deadlines.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for each added defendant and prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each one. The Clerk was also directed to provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to attempt service.
Notice About Service
The court advised McFadden that he was responsible for checking with the U.S. Marshals Service about whether service had been completed and, if needed, requesting an extension of time. The court stated that if McFadden did not complete service or request an extension within 90 days after the summonses were issued, it could dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order. The opinion addresses the stay and service procedures; it does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.