Owens v. Orange County Jail
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Owens v. Orange County, Judge Briccetti extended the deadline to serve Kedar and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Owens received more time to serve Imam Malik Kedar. The U.S. Marshals Service remained responsible for attempting service under the court’s service orders, and any appeal from this order would not receive a filing-fee waiver.
What happened
In Desean J. Owens v. Imam Malik Kedar and Orange County, Owens brought constitutional-rights claims under a federal civil-rights law and was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. The Marshals Service had not yet served Kedar, although it was working to do so.
The court extended Owens’s deadline to serve Kedar until June 30, 2023. The court said that if service was not completed by then, Owens should request another extension.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that an appeal from this order would not qualify for a filing-fee waiver. The order did not decide the underlying constitutional-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:22-cv-06487
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 1, 2023
Background
Owens, who was proceeding pro se—that is, without a lawyer—and without paying filing fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of constitutional rights. The court had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Imam Malik Kedar and Orange County. The Marshals Service filed a return stating that service on Kedar had not been completed. Orange County later provided a new address for Kedar, and the court issued an amended service order directing service at that address. The docket still did not show that Kedar had been served, although the court had been informed that the Marshals Service was working on service.
Ruling
The court extended, on its own initiative, the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for serving Kedar to June 30, 2023. It stated that if the Marshals Service had not served Kedar by that deadline, Owens should request an extension of time for service. The order did not resolve the merits of Owens’s constitutional-rights claims.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Owens the ability to proceed without paying appellate filing fees for an appeal from this order. The court directed its chambers to mail Owens a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.