Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2023

Robertson v. Fluerinord

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:23-cv-04977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Robertson v. Fluerinord, Judge Koeltl ordered service materials remailed after an earlier mailing was returned undeliverable.

Who this affects

Dale Robertson, the Clerk of Court, and Daniel Pozin as Elmsford Village Counsel were affected by the court’s directions concerning mailing the service materials and identifying an Elmsford police officer.

What happened

In Robertson v. Fluerinord, Dale Robertson, who was representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over alleged violations during and after his arrest. The court had previously directed service of the complaint and sought help identifying an Elmsford police officer.

The court said the earlier mailing to the Elmsford Village Counsel was returned as undeliverable. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail this order, the earlier service order, and the complaint to Daniel Pozin at two listed addresses.

Judge John G. Koeltl’s order concerned mailing and identifying a defendant; it did not decide whether Robertson’s allegations were legally valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Robertson v. Fluerinord · No. 1:23-cv-04977
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Aug. 15, 2023

Background

Dale Robertson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that police officers from the Greenburgh Police Department, the Elmsford Police Department, and the 47th Precinct in the Bronx violated his rights during and after his arrest on or about September 7, 2020. The complaint named Jacqueline Fluerinord, four unidentified police officers, the City of New York, and Westchester County as defendants.

Earlier Service Order

On July 27, 2023, the court issued an order directing steps to serve the defendants. Among other things, the order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and complaint to the Elmsford Village Counsel. It also directed the Village Counsel to identify the Elmsford Police Department officer involved in the events described in the complaint and provide that information to Robertson and the court.

Court’s Action

The court stated that the July 27 order was returned as undeliverable on August 11, 2023. Judge John G. Koeltl therefore directed the Clerk of Court to mail the August 15 order, a copy of the July 27 order, and the complaint to Daniel Pozin at McCarthy Fingar LLP at each of two addresses listed in the order. The opinion addresses service and defendant identification only; it does not decide the merits of Robertson’s civil-rights claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.