Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 21, 2023

Williams v. NYC Board of Elections

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:23-cv-05460
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro SeEmployment
In one sentence

In Williams v. NYC Board of Elections, Judge Gardephe ordered service on five defendants but declined to identify the Doe defendants.

Who this affects

Carman Williams and the five named defendants—New York City Board of Elections, Hemalee Patel, Donna Ellaby, Carol Winer, and Reshma Patel—are affected by the service instructions. The John and Jane Doe defendants were not identified through the procedure addressed in this order.

What happened

Carman Williams, who is representing herself, sued the New York City Board of Elections and employees, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws. The court had allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Because Williams could proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the Board and four named individuals. The court also said Williams must request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe declined at this time to seek identifying information for John and Jane Does 1–10 because Williams alleged no facts showing their direct involvement and provided no information that would identify them. The order did not decide whether her discrimination or retaliation claims were valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Williams v. NYC Board of Elections · No. 1:23-cv-05460
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
July 21, 2023

Background

Carman Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleges that the New York City Board of Elections and its employees discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service on Named Defendants

Because Williams was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of these defendants: New York City Board of Elections, Hemalee Patel, Donna Ellaby, Carol Winer, and Reshma Patel. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

The court stated that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Williams should request an extension. The court also required Williams to notify it in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she does not do so.

John and Jane Doe Defendants

Williams also named John and Jane Does 1–10. The court declined at this time to issue an order seeking information to identify those defendants because the complaint alleged no facts showing that they were directly involved in the alleged discriminatory conduct and provided no information that would allow them to be identified.

Disposition and Effect

The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and provide service materials for the five named defendants. It declined at this time to issue an identification order concerning the Doe defendants. The order addressed service and identification issues; it did not rule on the merits of Williams’s discrimination or retaliation claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.