Shamilov v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-10224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shamilov v. City of New York, Judge Wang ordered address assistance for serving a retired defendant and denied fee-free appeal status.
Aleksandr Shamilov, Kin Chan, the New York City Law Department, and the court’s Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Shamilov v. City of New York, Aleksandr Shamilov, who is representing himself, sued the City of New York and others. He had been unable to provide a current address for Kin Chan, whom the court understood to be a retired senior director of the New York City Department of Finance.
The court ordered the New York City Law Department to provide Shamilov and the court with Chan’s last known address within 30 days. After receiving that information, the court said it would direct the Clerk of Court to prepare the documents needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Chan.
Judge Ona T. Wang also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Shamilov permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Shamilov v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10224
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 12, 2022
Background
Aleksandr Shamilov brings this action without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In his amended complaint, Shamilov sued Kin Chan, whom the court understood to be a retired senior director of the New York City Department of Finance. Because Chan was retired, Shamilov had been unable to give the court a current address where Chan could be served with the lawsuit.
Order
The court relied on the rule that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying a defendant. It ordered the New York City Law Department, described in the opinion as the attorney for and agent of the New York City Department of Finance, to provide Shamilov and the court with Chan’s last known address within 30 days of the order.
The court stated that, once it received the address, it would issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the required service forms and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order and amended complaint to the New York City Law Department at the address listed in the order.
Appeal and Disposition
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Shamilov permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. This order addressed service-related assistance and appeal-fee status; it did not reach the merits of Shamilov’s underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns identifying and serving a defendant and the fees required for an appeal, rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.