McFadden v. City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-05508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McFadden v. City of New York, Judge Broderick directed service of a summons on Alcantara Odaliza through the Marshals Service.
The order directly affects Denver McFadden, Alcantara Odaliza, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service by directing the process for attempting service and warning of a possible dismissal if service is not completed or an extension is not requested.
What happened
In McFadden v. City of New York, Denver McFadden, who is representing himself, told the court that he had identified four previously unnamed defendants for service. The court found that three were already named and that the fourth appeared to correct a name in an earlier service order.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Alcantara Odaliza at the listed address and provide the paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could attempt service. McFadden was told to check with the Marshals Service about whether service was completed and, if needed, request more time.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that if McFadden did not complete service or request an extension within 90 days after the summons was issued, the court might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- McFadden v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-05508
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 18, 2022
Background
Denver McFadden, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a letter stating that he had identified four John Doe defendants and wanted them served so they could be added to the action. The court determined that three of the four people were already named in its January 24, 2022 Order of Service, while the fourth appeared to be a correction to a name in that order.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons to Alcantara Odaliza at 1 Police Plaza, New York, New York 10038. The Clerk was also directed to prepare the U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form and give the Marshals Service the paperwork needed to attempt service on Odaliza.
Service Deadline and Possible Consequence
The order stated that McFadden was responsible for asking the Marshals Service whether service had been completed and, if necessary, requesting an extension of time. If McFadden did not complete service or request an extension within 90 days after the summons was issued, the court stated that it might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The court ordered the summons and service-related steps described above. It did not rule on the merits of McFadden’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.