Maldonado v. Gunsett
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado v. Gunsett, Judge Briccetti extended service and response deadlines and denied a fee waiver for any appeal.
Edwin Maldonado, the unserved defendants Kevin O’Connor and Anthony C. Russo, and all defendants whose response deadline was extended.
What happened
Maldonado v. Gunsett is a civil-rights case brought by Edwin Maldonado, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He claimed that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.
Two defendants, Kevin O’Connor and Anthony C. Russo, had not yet been served with the third amended complaint, although the U.S. Marshals Service was working on service. The court extended the deadline to serve them to June 9, 2023, and extended the deadline for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond to June 30, 2023.
Judge Briccetti also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Maldonado permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Gunsett · No. 7:21-cv-03719
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 8, 2023
Background
Edwin Maldonado, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court had docketed his third amended complaint on July 1, 2022, and had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve it on the defendants.
The court had previously extended Maldonado’s deadline to serve the defendants to May 10, 2023, and extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to May 31, 2023. As of this order, Kevin O’Connor and Anthony C. Russo had not been served. The court had been informed that the Marshals Service was in the process of serving them.
Order
The court extended the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) to serve O’Connor and Russo to June 9, 2023. The court stated that, if service was not completed by that deadline, Maldonado should request another extension of time. The court also extended the time for all defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the third amended complaint to June 30, 2023.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. This order addressed service, response deadlines, and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the merits of Maldonado’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.