Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 5, 2023

Urena v. The City of New York

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-06967
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Urena v. The City of New York, Judge Rochon ordered U.S. Marshals to serve the City and four named officers in Urena’s civil-rights lawsuit.

Who this affects

Amaury Urena and the City of New York, Officer Will Rodriguez, Officer Lauren Moriarty, Officer Imran Alli, and Sergeant Juan Candelario.

What happened

Amaury Urena, representing himself, sued the City of New York and four named officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that they violated his rights. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Because Urena was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the City and the four officers. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also directed Urena to ask for more time if service is not completed within that period and to notify the court in writing if his address changes. The order addressed service of the lawsuit, not whether Urena’s claims are valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Urena v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06967
Judge
Rochon
Date
Sept. 5, 2023

Background

Amaury Urena, who is representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his rights. The defendants identified in the order are the City of New York, Officer Will Rodriguez, Officer Lauren Moriarty, Officer Imran Alli, and Sergeant Juan Candelario.

The court had previously granted Urena permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. In such cases, the court stated that the plaintiff may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for each defendant, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant using the listed service addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Urena the order and an information package.

The court explained that the usual 90-day service period runs from the filing of the complaint, but Urena could not serve the papers until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued. It therefore extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Urena should request an extension of time. The court also stated that Urena must notify it in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition and significance

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered an order arranging service of the lawsuit through the U.S. Marshals Service. The order did not decide the merits of Urena’s allegations or whether any defendant violated his rights.

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.