Arroyo v. Kent Security Services
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-00073
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arroyo v. Kent Security Services, Judge Cronan ordered service through the Marshals after allowing Arroyo to proceed.
Noel Arroyo, Kent Security Services, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Arroyo v. Kent Security Services, Noel Arroyo had permission to proceed without handling service himself, so the court and the U.S. Marshals Service could serve Kent Security Services.
The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It also explained that Arroyo should request more time if service was not completed by that deadline.
Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the required service form, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals. The Clerk was also directed to mail Arroyo a copy of the order and an information package.
The detailed version
- Arroyo v. Kent Security Services · No. 1:22-cv-00073
- John Cronan
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
Noel Arroyo had been granted permission to proceed IFP, meaning that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service of the lawsuit. The order concerns service of the complaint and summons on Kent Security Services, not the merits of Arroyo's claims.
Service deadline
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court determined that Arroyo could not have served the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summons was issued. If service was not completed within that period, the order stated that Arroyo should request an extension of time.
Court's directives
Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Kent Security Services, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with the defendant's address, and deliver all documents needed for service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Arroyo a copy of the order and an information package. Arroyo was required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the order stated that the court could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.
Disposition
This was an order concerning service and case administration. It did not decide the underlying claims against Kent Security Services.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.