Carter v. Sewell
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-01139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Carter v. Sewell, Judge Rochon ordered Marshals service for three defendants and denied two motions, including electronic filing without prejudice.
Darryl C. Carter, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the three defendants named for service—Keechant L. Sewell, Kathy Hochul, and Letitia James. The order did not direct service on the unidentified defendants mentioned in the complaint.
What happened
Carter v. Sewell is a lawsuit by Darryl C. Carter, who is representing himself, challenging New York laws and regulations about firearms in sensitive locations and New York City concealed-carry licensing. He sued Keechant L. Sewell, Kathy Hochul, and Letitia James in their official capacities under a federal civil-rights law.
Because Carter was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve Sewell, Hochul, and James. The court set the service deadline at 90 days after the summonses are issued and instructed Carter to request more time if service is not completed.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied as moot Carter’s motion for summonses and Marshals service because the court separately ordered that service. She denied his motion for electronic case filing without prejudice, allowing him to submit the court’s required form. This order addressed service and filing procedures rather than deciding the validity of Carter’s claims.
The detailed version
- Carter v. Sewell · No. 1:23-cv-01139
- Rochon
- Mar. 14, 2023
Background
Darryl C. Carter, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and costs. He sued Keechant L. Sewell, Kathy Hochul, and Letitia James in their official capacities. The opinion says Carter appears to challenge, both on the face of the laws and as applied to him, New York State and New York City laws and regulations prohibiting firearm possession in a “sensitive location,” including a homeless shelter and an adult shelter. He also appears to challenge New York City’s concealed-carry firearm-license application process.
Carter had already been allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees. He then moved for summonses and service by the U.S. Marshals Service and separately sought permission to file documents electronically.
Service of the Defendants
Because Carter 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 process. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of Sewell, Hochul, and James, issue summonses for them, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.
The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that if the complaint is not served within that period, Carter should request an extension of time. The order also required Carter to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Rulings on the Motions
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Carter an information package and to issue summonses and arrange service for Sewell, Hochul, and James. It denied Carter’s motion for the issuance of summonses and for service by the U.S. Marshals Service as moot because the court issued those service directions in the order.
The court denied Carter’s motion for permission for electronic case filing without prejudice to his completing and filing the Southern District of New York’s required “Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing” form. The opinion does not decide the merits of Carter’s challenges to the firearm laws, regulations, or concealed-carry licensing process.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.