Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2023

Chepilko v. The City of New York

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-11229
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Civil RightsPro Se
In one sentence

In Chepilko v. City of New York, Judge Carter ordered steps for Marshals Service to serve two defendants in the plaintiff’s civil-rights case.

Who this affects

Chepilko and the individual defendants Michael Loeffel and Louis Barbarelli; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take service-related steps.

What happened

In Chepilko v. The City of New York, Chepilko, who is representing himself, alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment right to sell photographs at Rockefeller Center. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and had authorized service through the court and the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare amended summonses and service forms for Officer Michael Loeffel and Lieutenant Louis Barbarelli, and to give the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also stated that Chepilko should request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered these service-related steps and instructed the Clerk to mail Chepilko an information package. The order did not decide whether the defendants violated Chepilko’s First Amendment rights.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chepilko v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-11229
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Mar. 27, 2023

Background

Chepilko brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to sell his photographs at Rockefeller Center. He is representing himself. The court had granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The court previously determined that Chepilko could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed the New York City Law Department to identify the officers initially named as John Does. Chepilko later filed an amended complaint naming individual defendants, including Michael Loeffel and Louis Barbarelli. He declined to file a second amended complaint after the court granted him permission to do so. The City’s Corporation Counsel later informed the court that it would not accept service for the individual defendants.

Court’s Action

Because Chepilko was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he was entitled to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of the two defendants, issue amended summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.

The court stated that if the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Chepilko should request an extension of time. It also instructed him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the Clerk to mail Chepilko an information package, issue amended summonses for Michael Loeffel and Louis Barbarelli, complete the service forms with the listed address, and provide the documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. This order addressed service of process and did not decide the merits of Chepilko’s First Amendment claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.