Duckett v. Demarco
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-00228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Duckett v. Demarco, Judge Caproni ordered the Marshals Service to serve the complaint on Officer Demarco in Duckett’s civil-rights case.
Anthony Bernard Duckett, Police Officer Daniel Demarco, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order requires the Clerk and Marshals Service to take steps to serve Demarco and sets requirements for Duckett concerning service and address changes.
What happened
Anthony Bernard Duckett sued Police Officer Daniel Demarco under a federal civil-rights law, seeking damages. Duckett is representing himself and was permitted to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, complete a service form, and give the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve Demarco. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order of service. The order did not decide whether Duckett’s claims are legally valid or whether Demarco is liable.
The detailed version
- Duckett v. Demarco · No. 1:23-cv-00228
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
Anthony Bernard Duckett brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages from Police Officer Daniel Demarco. The opinion states that Duckett is presently held in the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and is proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously granted Duckett permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of process
Because Duckett was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The Clerk of Court was directed to issue a summons for Demarco, complete a U.S. Marshals Service process receipt and return form with Demarco’s address, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve him.
The court also extended the deadline for service. Rather than measuring the 90-day period from the filing of the complaint, the court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Duckett should request an extension. The court also stated that Duckett must notify it in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order directing service on Demarco and directed the Clerk of Court to mail Duckett an information package. The opinion does not decide the merits of Duckett’s damages claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.