Darley v. United States of America
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-00714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Darley v. United States, Judge Halpern ordered Marshals service on five individuals and extended the service deadline.
Nicholas Darley, the five individuals identified for service, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Darley v. United States of America, Nicholas Darley brought a Federal Tort Claims Act case seeking money and court-ordered relief. He was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without prepaying fees.
Five individuals had not been served because earlier service attempts were unsuccessful. After the U.S. Attorney’s Office provided their service addresses, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the complaint. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the service steps and directed Darley to notify the court if his address changes. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Darley v. United States of America · No. 7:22-cv-00714
- Philip Halpern
- July 8, 2022
Background
Nicholas Darley, who was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, brought this action without a lawyer under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He seeks damages and injunctive relief. The court had previously directed service on all defendants, but service forms for five individuals were returned unexecuted. The court then directed the U.S. Attorney’s Office to provide service addresses, and the office did so.
Service Order
Because Darley had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after summonses are issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Darley should request additional time.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for the five listed individuals, complete the required service forms using the addresses provided, mark the forms for service on the United States, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Darley a copy of the order and an information package.
Other Direction and Disposition
The court directed Darley to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Philip M. Halpern’s order addressed service and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the merits of Darley’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.