Sutton v. Adams
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-03880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sutton v. Adams, Judge Oetken ordered Marshals service of the complaint but denied fee-free appeal status.
Troy Sutton, the City of New York, and Eric Adams; the order directs the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
What happened
Sutton v. Adams concerns Troy Sutton’s claim that he was fired for not complying with New York City’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The order does not decide whether that claim is valid.
Because Sutton was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance and was representing himself, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York and Eric Adams. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge J. Paul Oetken also required Sutton to notify the court of any address change and denied permission to appeal this order without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sutton v. Adams · No. 1:23-cv-03880
- James Oetken
- May 18, 2023
Background
Troy Sutton, appearing without a lawyer, alleges that he was fired for failing to comply with a New York City requirement that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. The opinion does not decide the merits of that allegation. The court had previously allowed Sutton to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of the Complaint
Because Sutton was proceeding without prepaying fees, federal law required the court to arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the usual 90-day service period to 90 days after the summons is issued, because Sutton could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered issuance of a summons.
The Clerk of Court was directed to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for the City of New York and Mayor Eric Adams, issue the summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve both defendants.
Other Orders and Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to mail Sutton an information package. Sutton must notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from this order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. This order concerns service and related procedures; it does not rule on whether Sutton was unlawfully fired.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.