Maldonado v. Gunsett
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Judge Briccetti ordered service on remaining defendants and stayed response deadlines in Maldonado’s constitutional-rights case.
Edwin Maldonado, the 11 defendants listed in the appendix, the Clerk, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Edwin Maldonado, who is representing himself, brought constitutional-rights claims against Officer John Gunsett and others. The Attorney General’s office identified the remaining defendants and provided service information, including a corrected name for Daniel F. Mulligan.
The court ordered the Clerk to prepare summonses and paperwork so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve the 11 defendants listed in the appendix. It also paused the deadlines for defendants who had already been served to answer or file motions until the remaining defendants were served, or until September 30, 2022, whichever was later.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also denied Maldonado permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court directed Maldonado to send future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit, warned that submissions sent directly to chambers would be returned, and required him to report any address change.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Gunsett · No. 7:21-cv-03719
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 1, 2022
Background
Edwin Maldonado, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional-rights violations by people acting under state law. The case was against Officer John Gunsett and other defendants.
The Attorney General’s office identified the remaining John Doe defendants—the defendants previously named only by placeholder names—and supplied addresses where they could be served. The court had ordered Maldonado to file a third amended complaint naming those defendants. The office later provided the correct name and service address for Daniel F. Mulligan, who had previously been mistakenly identified as “Maligen.” The court received Maldonado’s third amended complaint on June 27, 2022.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered the Clerk to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service process receipt and return form for each of the 11 defendants listed in the appendix. The Clerk was also ordered to issue summonses and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork and addresses needed to serve those defendants.
The court stayed the time for defendants who had already been served to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the third amended complaint. That stay would last until the remaining defendants were served or until September 30, 2022, whichever date was later.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying fees. It instructed Maldonado to address future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit rather than directly to chambers, stating that submissions sent directly to chambers would be returned without consideration. It also required Maldonado to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the court might dismiss the action if he failed to do so.
Disposition and Significance
This was an order arranging service and managing case deadlines. It did not decide whether Maldonado’s constitutional-rights claims were valid or whether any defendant was liable. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered the order on July 1, 2022.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.