Iosilevich v. Walmart Inc.

Background

Ilya Feliksovich Iosilevich, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Walmart, Inc., Joseph Negron, Kevin P. Bruen, John T. Reicherter, and Westchester County.

Because the plaintiff was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the U.S. Marshals Service was responsible for serving the defendants. The court previously directed the Marshals Service to serve the defendants and warned the plaintiff to request an extension if service was not completed by the deadline.

The court later directed the New York Attorney General’s Office to provide an address where Reicherter could be served. The office supplied the address of a New York State Troopers location, and the court directed the Marshals Service to serve Reicherter there. The Marshals Service attempted service on January 4, 2023, but reported that Reicherter no longer worked at that location. The court received that unexecuted service report on March 28, 2023. The plaintiff had not requested an extension or apparently checked the status of service before or after the January 19, 2023 deadline.

On March 27, 2023, Reicherter moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including failure to serve him on time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court did not rule on that motion in this order.

Orders

The court ordered Andrew Blancato, who represented Reicherter, to provide an updated address where Reicherter could be served by April 6, 2023. The submission also had to state whether the New York Attorney General’s Office would accept service for Reicherter.

The court extended the plaintiff’s Rule 4(m) service deadline to May 30, 2023, making the extension effective as of the earlier deadline. The court attributed the extension to the Marshals Service’s inability to serve Reicherter at the previously supplied address and the delay in docketing the unexecuted service report. The court warned that the plaintiff was responsible for requesting an extension if service would not be completed on time and stated that it would not issue further extensions on its own.

The Clerk was directed to remove Blancato as counsel for Negron and add him as counsel for Reicherter. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Result and scope

This order addressed service of process, counsel information, and appeal-fee status. It did not decide the claims against the defendants or the grounds raised in Reicherter’s motion to dismiss.