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

MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-05890
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, Judge Schofield ordered U.S. Marshals to serve the complaint on the defendants.

Who this affects

Kelly MacNeal and the defendants identified for service—the New York City Commission on Human Rights, Sapna Raj, and Jacqueline Rios—are affected. The order directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service.

What happened

In MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, Kelly MacNeal, representing herself, alleges that the defendants discriminated against her because of her race and disability and violated other laws concerning her involuntary hospitalization.

The court had already allowed MacNeal to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because she was proceeding this way, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents and forms needed to serve the New York City Commission on Human Rights, Sapna Raj, and Jacqueline Rios.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The court also said MacNeal should request more time if service is not completed by then and must notify the court in writing if her address changes.

The detailed version

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

Case
MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights · No. 1:23-cv-05890
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 11, 2023

Background

Kelly MacNeal, who is representing herself, filed claims under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York State and New York City human-rights laws. She alleges discrimination based on race and disability. Because the complaint also alleges conspiracy and other violations connected to her involuntary hospitalization, the court construed it as including claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

The court had previously granted MacNeal permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. A person proceeding under that permission may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

Order

The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The defendants identified for service are the New York City Commission on Human Rights, Sapna Raj, and Jacqueline Rios.

The court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served within that period, MacNeal should request an extension of time. The court also required her to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

Disposition and significance

This is an order concerning service of process, not a decision on whether MacNeal's discrimination, conspiracy, or other claims are legally valid. The court ordered the summonses and service materials to be provided to the U.S. Marshals Service.

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.