Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 17, 2022

Shamilov v. City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:20-cv-10224
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Shamilov v. City of New York, Judge Abrams ordered U.S. Marshals to serve the amended complaint on eleven individual defendants.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the eleven named individual defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Shamilov v. City of New York, the court addressed how the plaintiff’s amended complaint would be served after allowing him to proceed without paying filing fees. Earlier orders had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the individual defendants.

The court identified eleven individual defendants to be served. It instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service forms, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary paperwork. The summonses and amended complaint were also to be emailed to David Atik of the New York City Department of Finance.

Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order on March 17, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it directed the steps needed to serve the individual defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Shamilov v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10224
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 17, 2022

Background

The plaintiff had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. In orders dated December 8 and December 22, 2021, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the amended complaint on the individual defendants.

Order

The court explained that a plaintiff allowed to proceed without paying filing fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The court cited the federal statute and rule requiring court officers to issue and serve process in such cases.

The court ordered service on Akeem Ayinde, Sanjeev Aggarwal, William Hernandez, Anne Mary Mukassa, Estella Dong, Velaska Alexander-Adams (identified by the plaintiff as Vaneska Alexander Adams), Ira Elias, Roy Abir, William Marshal, Harry Leonard, and Kimberly Corker. The order states that each individual is an employee of the New York City Department of Finance and can be found at 66 John Street, Room 104, New York, New York, 10038.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and deliver the paperwork needed for service to the Marshals Service. The summonses and amended complaint were also to be emailed to David Atik of the Department of Finance.

Disposition and Effect

The court entered an order of service. It did not address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. The order primarily affected the plaintiff, the eleven individual defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.