Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2023

Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-01142
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital, Judge Rearden ordered the Clerk to arrange Marshals service for Friedman’s fee-free lawsuit.

Who this affects

Robert J. Friedman and the three named defendants—Mt. Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, and Dr. Joy Riskin—are affected by the service instructions and deadlines.

What happened

In Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital, Robert J. Friedman, representing himself, sued Mt. Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, and Dr. Joy Riskin for damages related to his alleged confinement at the hospital in 1987.

Because Friedman was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance, the court said he could rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk was directed to issue summonses, prepare the necessary forms, and send the paperwork to the Marshals Service.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The order did not decide whether Friedman’s claims were legally valid; it addressed only the steps for serving the defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital · No. 1:23-cv-01142
Judge
Rearden
Date
Mar. 24, 2023

Background

Robert J. Friedman, who is proceeding without a lawyer, sued Mt. Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, and Dr. Joy Riskin. He seeks damages based on his allegation that he was falsely imprisoned at Mt. Sinai Hospital from October 4, 1987, through November 22, 1987.

The court had previously granted Friedman permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This status is commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning that the plaintiff may pursue the case without paying court fees in advance.

Service of the Lawsuit

Because Friedman was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue a summons for each defendant, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the defendants’ addresses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.

The court explained that the usual 90-day period for serving a lawsuit could not begin in the ordinary way because Friedman could not serve the summonses and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued. The court therefore extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Friedman should ask for an extension. The court also directed Friedman to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that it may dismiss the case if he fails to do so.

Disposition

The court entered an order of service. It directed the Clerk to mail Friedman an information package, issue summonses for all three defendants, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order did not decide the merits of Friedman’s claims or state whether the defendants had been served.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.