Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 18, 2023

Grossman v. United States of America

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:19-cv-09191
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Grossman v. United States, Judge Roman ordered summonses issued and gave Yitz Grossman 90 days to serve the defendants.

Who this affects

Yitz Grossman and the six named defendants: Warden B. Von Blackensee, Captain Matt Whinery, Chris Entzel, Chaplain Avroham Richter, J. L. Maldonado, and Officer Ahamad Rezak, also identified as Ahmed Rezak.

What happened

In Grossman v. United States, Yitz Grossman, representing himself, alleged that six defendants violated his religious-practice rights while he was incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility. The case had not moved forward because Grossman had difficulty locating and serving the defendants and had not filed proof of service.

The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Warden B. Von Blackensee, Captain Matt Whinery, Chris Entzel, Chaplain Avroham Richter, J. L. Maldonado, and Correctional Officer Ahamad Rezak, also identified as Ahmed Rezak. The court also noted that some defendants authorized counsel for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to accept service and that addresses had been provided for others.

Judge Nelson S. Roman did not dismiss the case in this order. He gave Grossman 90 days after the summonses were issued to serve the defendants or request more time, and warned that the case may be dismissed under the federal service and prosecution rules if he does neither.

The detailed version

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

Case
Grossman v. United States of America · No. 7:19-cv-09191
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
May 18, 2023

Background

Yitz Grossman filed the action representing himself against Officer Ahamad Rezak, Warden B. Von Blackensee, Captain Matt Whinery, Chris Entzel, Chaplain Avroham Richter, and J. L. Maldonado. He alleged that the defendants violated his right to freely practice his religion while he was incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility. Grossman filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2019.

The court previously directed the Clerk to issue summonses and directed Grossman to serve the defendants. Grossman reported difficulty locating Rezak. The New York State Attorney General’s Office stated that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had never employed anyone with the last name “Rezak” and said the allegations appeared to concern the Federal Correctional Institution Otisville, operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court then directed the United States Attorney’s Office to provide an address for service on Rezak, also identified as Ahmed Rezak.

Grossman later reported that he had served all defendants except Rezak, but that a process server had been unable to serve Rezak. He also had not filed proof of service for the defendants he said had been served. After the court issued orders requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Grossman requested more time and described his efforts to obtain assistance with service. The court extended the service deadline and later directed the United States Attorney’s Office to provide addresses for the remaining defendants. The office responded that Whinery, Entzel, Richter, and Maldonado had authorized Federal Bureau of Prisons counsel to accept service and provided a service address for that counsel. It also provided addresses for Von Blackensee and Rezak.

Court’s Action

The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Von Blackensee, Whinery, Entzel, Richter, Maldonado, and Rezak. Grossman must serve each defendant with a summons and a copy of the amended complaint within 90 days after the summonses are issued. He must also file proof of service.

The court warned that if Grossman neither serves the defendants nor requests an extension within that 90-day period, it may dismiss the action under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide whether Grossman’s religious-practice allegations were legally valid and did not dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.