Harris v. Adams
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kiven Harrs v. Eric Adams, Judge Swain ordered an address update, warning she would dismiss the case without prejudice if Harrs failed.
Kiven Harrs must provide a mailing address or consent to electronic service within 60 days. The action may be dismissed without prejudice if he does not comply, because the court and defendants need an address for service.
What happened
In Kiven Harrs v. Eric Adams, Kiven Harrs was held at the Eric M. Taylor Center when he filed the case. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees, but learned he was released and had not provided a new mailing address or made further submissions.
The court said Harrs must provide a current mailing address within 60 days, or consent to electronic service by completing and returning a form. The court explained that the case could not proceed if court documents and defendants’ documents could not be served on him.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Harrs to provide the information through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice and denied permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Adams · No. 1:23-cv-08427
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
Kiven Harrs, who was representing himself, filed the action while held at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island. The court received his complaint on September 22, 2023, and granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees on September 26, 2023. The court’s order granting that status was not returned after being mailed to him at the detention center.
The court learned that Harrs was released from custody on October 4, 2023. He had not provided the court with a new mailing address, had not agreed to receive court documents electronically, and had not made any further written submissions.
Order
The court directed Harrs to notify it in writing within 60 days of the order of either his current mailing address or his consent to electronic service. To consent to electronic service, he had to complete and return the attached form. His response had to be sent to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and labeled with docket number 1:23-CV-8427 (LTS).
The court explained that Harrs was responsible for providing an address for service and that the action could not proceed if the court and defendants could not serve him with documents. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it stated that failure to comply within the allowed time would lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), without prejudice to refiling.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Harrs’s last known address and provide him a copy if he appeared at the Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.