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 of America, Judge Halpern ordered service of the complaint and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Nicholas Darley and the two remaining unserved defendants; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take service-related steps.
What happened
Nicholas Darley, who is representing himself, brought a Federal Tort Claims Act case seeking damages and an order requiring government action. Earlier service attempts for two individuals were unsuccessful because the Marshals Service said it needed an order from the Southern District of New York to serve them in Ohio.
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and told Darley to notify the court if his address changes.
Judge Halpern ordered service on the two remaining individuals and denied permission to appeal this order without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Darley v. United States of America · No. 7:22-cv-00714
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
Nicholas Darley, who is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Marion and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court had previously issued orders directing service on the defendants. Service forms for five individuals were returned unexecuted, and the United States Attorney’s Office later supplied service addresses. The court then issued a second order directing service on those five individuals.
Service forms for two of the five individuals were again returned unexecuted. The forms stated that the individuals could not be served by the U.S. Marshals Service in the Northern District of Ohio without an order directing that service on behalf of the Southern District of New York.
Court’s Analysis
Because Darley had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, he was entitled to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court explained that the usual 90-day service period did not begin in the ordinary way because Darley could not serve the summonses and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered issuance of the summonses.
The court therefore extended the service period until 90 days after summonses are issued for the defendants. It stated that Darley should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. The court also noted that Darley must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Order
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to mail Darley a copy of the order and an information package. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses for the defendants listed in the order, complete the service forms with their service addresses, mark the forms for service on the United States, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service.
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 permission to appeal without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed service and appeal-fee status; it did not resolve the merits of Darley’s Federal Tort Claims Act allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.