Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 11, 2022

Stephen v. Hall

Judge
Figueredo
Docket
1:19-cv-02225-JPO-VF
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Stephen v. Hall, Magistrate Judge Figueredo ordered counsel to help locate service addresses for two unserved defendants.

Who this affects

Daryl Stephen, Terry Hall, David Jakab, and counsel for David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC. The order was intended to help Stephen serve Hall and Jakab and move the case forward; it did not resolve the underlying claims.

What happened

Daryl Stephen, representing himself and without paying filing fees in advance, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His third amended complaint named Terry Hall, David Jakab, an unidentified John Doe, and the City of New York; the City had already been dismissed. Stephen had not successfully served Hall or Jakab, even after the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to try service.

Stephen asked the court for help serving the defendants and said that Jakab had dissolved David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC and was no longer doing business in New York. The court relied on a rule allowing a self-represented litigant to receive help identifying a defendant or finding an address for service.

The court directed counsel for David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC, if able, to find addresses where Hall and Jakab could be served and provide them to Stephen and the court within 60 days. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo also directed the Clerk to mail the order and the third amended complaint to the business; the court did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stephen v. Hall · No. 1:19-cv-02225-JPO-VF
Judge
Figueredo
Date
Oct. 11, 2022

Background

Daryl Stephen, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His third amended complaint named Terry Hall, David Jakab doing business as David Jakab Bail Bonds, John Doe, and the City of New York. The City had previously been dismissed, and the John Doe defendant remained unidentified.

Stephen had not successfully served Hall or Jakab. The court had previously ordered that amended summonses be issued and that Stephen serve the complaint. After Stephen was granted permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service. The Marshals attempted service on August 4, 2022, but could not complete it at the address provided.

Stephen then filed a motion for service of process. He stated that Jakab had dissolved his limited liability company, David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC, and was no longer doing business in New York.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that under Valentin v. Dinkins, a self-represented litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant or finding an address where the defendant can be served. Because Stephen had named Hall and Jakab but had been unable to serve them, the court directed counsel for David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC, to the extent counsel could do so, to determine addresses where Hall and Jakab could be served.

Order and effect

The court directed counsel for David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC to provide the service addresses to Stephen and the court within 60 days of the order. After receiving the addresses, the court stated that it would issue an order directing the Clerk to complete the Marshals Service forms and provide the necessary documents for another service attempt.

The court directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order and the third amended complaint to David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC at 5 Centre St., Hempstead, New York 11550. This order addressed identifying service addresses and arranging service; it did not decide whether Stephen’s § 1983 claims were legally valid or establish liability for Hall or Jakab.

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.