Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 12, 2022

Anekwe v. Bernstein

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:21-cv-11108
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Anekwe v. Bernstein, Judge Preska ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the two defendants in Anekwe’s civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Peter Anekwe, Frederick Bernstein, Albert Acrish, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Anekwe v. Bernstein is a civil-rights lawsuit by Peter Anekwe, who was proceeding without a lawyer, against Frederick Bernstein and Albert Acrish. Anekwe alleges that they violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

The court had allowed Anekwe to proceed without prepaying fees. Because he could not arrange service before the court reviewed his complaint and issued summonses, the court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Bernstein and Acrish. The order did not decide whether Anekwe’s constitutional claims are valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Anekwe v. Bernstein · No. 1:21-cv-11108
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
Sept. 12, 2022

Background

Peter Anekwe, who was incarcerated at the time of the order and was proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Medical Director Frederick Bernstein and Medical Provider Albert Acrish violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

The court had previously granted Anekwe permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. In such cases, federal law requires the court to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

Service of Process

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court explained that Anekwe could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses to be issued. The court therefore extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses are issued.

The court stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Anekwe should request an extension of time. It also directed Anekwe to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Bernstein and Acrish, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the listed addresses, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Anekwe a copy of the order and an information package.

This was an order concerning service of process. It did not decide the merits of Anekwe’s constitutional claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.