McPhee v. Laino
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-10095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McPhee v. Laino, Judge Briccetti ordered service of added defendants, extended the service deadline, and paused defendants’ responses.
Aasim McPhee, the State of New York, the seven newly named corrections officers, the Clerk, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order primarily governs service of the second amended complaint and the defendants’ response deadlines.
What happened
In McPhee v. Laino, Aasim McPhee, who was representing himself and unable to pay filing costs, filed a second amended complaint naming seven newly identified corrections officers. The court also addressed service on the State of New York.
The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the necessary papers for the seven officers and the State. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and paused the time for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond.
Judge Briccetti also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McPhee permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The order was entered on July 6, 2023.
The detailed version
- McPhee v. Laino · No. 7:22-cv-10095
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 6, 2023
Background
Aasim McPhee, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing costs, filed a second amended complaint on July 5, 2023. The complaint named Corrections Officers Ileshema Thomas, Curtis Egloff, Brian Collins, Latanya Taylor, Jacqueline Webber, Brendan Haberin, and Melissa Cuomo, who had been newly identified by defense counsel. The amended pleadings also named the State of New York.
Court’s Orders
Because McPhee was proceeding without paying filing costs, the court allowed him to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The Clerk was ordered to prepare service forms for the seven corrections officers and the State of New York, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the papers needed to serve them.
The court extended the usual 90-day service period. McPhee’s deadline to serve the second amended complaint became 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that, if service was not completed within that period, McPhee should request an extension. The time for all defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint was stayed pending a further court order.
Appeal and Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied McPhee permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The order addressed service and response deadlines; it did not decide the underlying claims in the second amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.