Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2023

Muzumala v. The City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-08423
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Muzumala v. The City of New York, Judge Swain granted amendment and denied summonses without prejudice, giving the pro se plaintiff 60 days to refile.

Who this affects

Joshua Muzumala, a self-represented plaintiff, must file an amended complaint within 60 days to preserve the opportunity to proceed on that amended pleading; the City of New York and the other defendants were not served at this stage.

What happened

In Muzumala v. The City of New York, Joshua Muzumala, representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under federal law against the City of New York and other defendants. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Muzumala asked the court to arrange service of the defendants by a marshal or another court-appointed person, and he asked to amend his complaint. The court granted permission to amend but denied the request for summonses without prejudice, meaning he could renew that request after filing the amended complaint.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Muzumala 60 days to file an amended complaint. No summons would issue at that time; if he did not amend within 60 days, the original complaint would remain the operative pleading. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Muzumala v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08423
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 10, 2023

Background

Joshua Muzumala, who was representing himself, sued the City of New York and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of federally protected rights. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Muzumala filed a motion asking the court to arrange service on the defendants by a United States marshal, deputy marshal, or person specially appointed by the court. He also filed a declaration and a motion to amend his complaint.

Rulings

The court granted Muzumala’s motion to amend his complaint. It directed him to file a document titled “Amended Complaint” with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the order and to include docket number 22-CV-8423 (LTS). If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the original complaint would remain the operative pleading.

The court denied the motion for issuance of summonses without prejudice to renewal after Muzumala filed the amended complaint. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order addressed amendment and service procedures; the opinion does not decide the merits of Muzumala’s civil-rights allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.