Mayers v. Racino
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-05183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mayers v. Racino, Judge Vyskocil granted electronic filing, accepted Mayers’s amended complaint, and ordered service on the defendants.
Keston J. Mayers and the four named defendants. The Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service were also given service-related instructions.
What happened
Mayers v. Racino is a case brought by Keston J. Mayers, without a lawyer, against Brad Racino, Syracuse.com/NY Cannabis Insider, Advance Media New York, and Advance Local Media. Mayers asserts copyright-infringement and state-law claims and seeks damages and an order requiring the defendants to do or stop doing something.
The court had allowed Mayers to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It granted his request to file electronically, denied his request for permission to amend the complaint as unnecessary, and directed the Clerk of Court to treat his proposed amended complaint as the operative complaint. The court also ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide whether Mayers’s claims are valid. The order directs the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms; Mayers must request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.
The detailed version
- Mayers v. Racino · No. 1:23-cv-05183
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Keston J. Mayers filed this action without a lawyer against Brad Racino, Syracuse.com/NY Cannabis Insider, Advance Media New York, and Advance Local Media. The opinion says he asserts copyright-infringement claims and state-law claims and seeks damages and injunctive relief. The court had previously granted Mayers permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Mayers moved for permission to file electronically and separately moved for leave to file an amended complaint, submitting a proposed amended complaint.
Rulings
The court granted Mayers’s motion for permission for electronic case filing.
The court denied Mayers’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint as unnecessary under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). It directed the Clerk of Court to regard the proposed amended complaint as the operative pleading.
Because Mayers was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for the defendants, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve the summonses and amended complaint.
The court stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Mayers should request an extension of time. It also required Mayers to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order arranged the case’s filing and service procedures. It did not decide the merits of the copyright-infringement or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.