Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 11, 2022

Anekwe v. Bernstein

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:21-cv-11108
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Anekwe v. Bernstein, Judge Preska ordered U.S. Marshals to serve defendants in a prisoner’s constitutional-rights lawsuit.

Who this affects

Peter Anekwe, Frederick Bernstein, and Albert Acrish. The order directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Bernstein and Acrish.

What happened

Anekwe v. Bernstein concerns Peter Anekwe’s lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law against Frederick Bernstein and Albert Acrish. Anekwe alleges that they violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

The court explained that Anekwe had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance and therefore could rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to deliver the summonses and complaint. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, prepare service forms, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order also instructed Anekwe to notify the court of any address change.

The detailed version

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

Case
Anekwe v. Bernstein · No. 1:21-cv-11108
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
Feb. 11, 2022

Background

Peter Anekwe, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, brought this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Medical Director Frederick Bernstein and Medical Provider Albert Acrish violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had previously granted Anekwe permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance. Because Anekwe was proceeding this way, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

Service of the lawsuit

The court explained that the usual rule requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. But Anekwe could not have served the documents before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses to be issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

The court stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Anekwe should ask for an extension of time. It also instructed Anekwe to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Bernstein and Acrish, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and send the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Anekwe a copy of the order and an information package. The opinion does not decide whether Anekwe’s constitutional-rights allegations are valid.

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.