Lovett v. Bennett
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-05462
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lovett v. Bennett, Judge Roman ordered service on newly identified defendant Jaclyn Chafetz in Lovett’s pro se civil-rights case.
Steven J. Lovett, Jaclyn Chafetz, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order specifically concerns arranging service on Chafetz and sets service-related responsibilities for Lovett.
What happened
Lovett v. Bennett is a civil-rights case brought by Steven J. Lovett without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether they have merit.
Lovett initially sued Acting Sullivan Superintendent Susie Bennett and correction officers Shane Topel, Kevin Darling, and Felix Santos. After the court directed the New York Attorney General’s Office to identify an unnamed official, it identified that person as Jaclyn Chafetz, whom Lovett named in a second amended complaint.
Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk to prepare the paperwork and summons needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Chafetz. The order also stated that Lovett must ensure service within 90 days after the summons is issued, request more time if necessary, and notify the court of any address change.
The detailed version
- Lovett v. Bennett · No. 7:22-cv-05462
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 4, 2023
Background
Steven J. Lovett, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law used to seek relief for alleged violations involving government officials. He filed the action on June 27, 2022, received permission to proceed without prepaying court fees, and later filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint named Acting Sullivan Superintendent Susie Bennett and Sullivan Correction Officers Shane Topel, Kevin Darling, and Felix Santos. The court also directed that an unidentified official, referred to as “John Doe,” be added and instructed the New York Attorney General’s Office to determine that person’s identity and address. The Attorney General’s Office identified the official as Jaclyn Chafetz. Lovett then named Chafetz in a second amended complaint.
Court’s Action
The court instructed the Clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process receipt and return form for Chafetz, using the service address provided in the order. The Clerk was also instructed to issue a summons and give the Marshals Service the paperwork needed to serve Chafetz.
The order stated that Lovett is responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons is issued. It also stated that he may request an extension of time if necessary, must notify the court in writing of any address change, and may face dismissal of the action if he fails to do so. The opinion does not rule on the merits of Lovett’s claims or state whether any defendant violated the law.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.