Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 1, 2023

Ditto v. Ditto

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-05814
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Ditto v. Ditto, Judge Rearden ordered service on Catherine Ditto through the Marshals Service but declined to identify the John Doe defendants.

Who this affects

Frank Ditto, Catherine Ditto, the ten unidentified John Doe defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Ditto v. Ditto, Frank Ditto, representing himself, brought state-law claims against Catherine Ditto and ten unidentified defendants. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court directed the Clerk to issue a summons and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so Catherine Ditto could be served. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and declined, for now, to seek identifying information for the John Doe defendants because the complaint did not include allegations or enough information to identify them.

Judge Rearden also directed the Clerk to mail Frank Ditto an information package and ruled that any appeal from the order could not proceed without prepayment of fees because it would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying state-law claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ditto v. Ditto · No. 1:23-cv-05814
Judge
Rearden
Date
Sept. 1, 2023

Background

Frank Ditto, appearing without a lawyer, sued Catherine Ditto and ten John Doe defendants under state law, relying on the court’s jurisdiction over disputes involving citizens of different states. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service on Catherine Ditto

Because Frank Ditto was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Catherine Ditto. The court explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin to operate in the ordinary way because Frank Ditto could not serve the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summons issued. It therefore extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.

The Clerk was instructed to complete the U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue a summons for Catherine Ditto, and deliver the order and other necessary papers to the Marshals Service. If service is not completed within 90 days after the summons is issued, Frank Ditto should request an extension of time. The court also directed him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

John Doe defendants

The court found that Frank Ditto had not made allegations against the John Doe defendants or provided enough information for their attorneys or agents to identify them. It therefore declined, at this time, to ask for their identities.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk to issue the summons for Catherine Ditto, complete the service forms, and send the required documents to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Frank Ditto an information package. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. This order addressed service and related case administration; it did not decide the merits of the underlying 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.