Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 11, 2023

McCallum v. The City of New York

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-00081
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In McCallum v. New York City Police Department, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger ordered service on eight identified officers so the pro se plaintiff could pursue his claims.

Who this affects

The order affected Douglas McCallum and the eight officers identified for service: Detectives Edgar Clases, Coty Green, Josue Marcelin, Jason Merchan, Donald Sehl, Ezequiel Martinez, and Nelson Nin, and UC 0361. It also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to complete service.

What happened

Douglas McCallum, representing himself, alleged that an unidentified New York City police officer falsely arrested and assaulted him and later identified additional unknown officers involved in his arrest. The court had previously directed the New York City Law Department to help identify those officers.

The defendants identified nine officers believed to have information about McCallum’s arrest, including Lieutenant Alberto Gonzalez and eight other officers. Because Gonzalez already had a service order, the court ordered the Clerk to prepare summonses and service paperwork for the remaining eight officers so the U.S. Marshals Service could serve them.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger also stated that McCallum was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summonses were issued, requesting more time if necessary, and notifying the court of any address change. The order did not decide whether McCallum’s allegations were legally or factually valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
McCallum v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00081
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Aug. 11, 2023

Background

Douglas McCallum, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging that an unidentified member of the New York City Police Department falsely arrested and assaulted him on December 15, 2019. The court issued an order directing the New York City Law Department to help identify the unknown officer. The Law Department identified Lieutenant Alberto Gonzalez, and McCallum then filed an amended complaint naming Gonzalez and alleging wrongful conduct by additional unidentified officers.

The court issued another identification order. The defendants identified nine officers believed to have information about McCallum’s arrest: Lieutenant Alberto Gonzalez; Detectives Edgar Clases, Coty Green, Josue Marcelin, Jason Merchan, Donald Sehl, Ezequiel Martinez, and Nelson Nin; and officer UC 0361.

Order

The court had already issued an order for service on Gonzalez. In this order, it issued service orders for the remaining eight defendants. It directed the Clerk of Court to complete eight U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue eight summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve those defendants at One Police Plaza, Room 110A, New York, New York 10038.

The order stated that McCallum was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summonses were issued and, if needed, requesting an extension of time. It also required him to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the court could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The court did not decide the merits of McCallum’s false-arrest or assault allegations. It addressed identifying defendants and arranging service so the case could proceed against the identified officers.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.