Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman, Judge Roman ordered service of Vann’s civil-rights lawsuit through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Kouriockein Vann and the three named defendants—Dr. Janice Wolfe-Friedman, Dr. Mikail Gusman, and Dr. Helena Korobkova—were affected by the court’s service instructions; the U.S. Marshals Service and Clerk of Court were directed to carry them out.
What happened
In Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman, Kouriockein Vann, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Dr. Janice Wolfe-Friedman, Dr. Mikail Gusman, and Dr. Helena Korobkova under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued because Vann could not serve them before the court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered summonses.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also stated that Vann should request more time if service is not completed within that period and must notify the court in writing of any address change. The order addressed service procedures and did not decide whether Vann’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman · No. 7:23-cv-00236
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 3, 2023
Background
Kouriockein Vann, who is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors. He named Dr. Janice Wolfe-Friedman, Dr. Mikail Gusman, and Dr. Helena Korobkova as defendants. The opinion states that Vann alleges the defendants violated his constitutional rights, but this order does not analyze those allegations.
The court had granted Vann permission to proceed without paying court fees upfront in an order dated September 22, 2023. Because he was allowed to proceed this way, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Court’s action
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for the three defendants, issue summonses, and deliver the documents needed for the Marshals Service to serve them. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Vann should request an extension if the complaint is not served within that period.
The court also instructed Vann to notify it in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. The order directed the Clerk to send Vann a copy of the order and an information package.
Disposition and significance
This was an order arranging service of the lawsuit. It did not grant or deny a motion concerning the merits, and it did not decide whether the defendants violated Vann’s constitutional rights. The court’s directives concerned issuance of summonses, service by the Marshals Service, the service deadline, and address updates.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.