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

Henryx v. Radhakrishnan

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:23-cv-00831
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Henryx v. Radhakrishnan, Judge Parker allowed Henryx more time to serve the defendants, warning that failure could lead to dismissal.

Who this affects

Christopher A. Henryx received additional time to serve Aditya Radhakrishnan and Vjolca Vjubagnonc. The order sets a January 29, 2024 service deadline and warns that failure to meet it may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

What happened

In Henryx v. Radhakrishnan, Christopher A. Henryx asked for more time to serve Aditya Radhakrishnan and Vjolca Vjubagnonc with the complaint and summons.

Henryx said he had filed an amended complaint on time but could not serve the defendants because of circumstances beyond his control, including being involuntarily committed to a medical facility. The court directed him to complete service by January 29, 2024.

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker allowed the additional time but warned that failing to properly serve the defendants could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Henryx v. Radhakrishnan · No. 1:23-cv-00831
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Dec. 1, 2023

Background

Christopher A. Henryx, who was representing himself and had not been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, asked for more time to serve the defendants with the complaint and summons. The requested extension was needed because the deadline had already passed after the court reopened the action.

Henryx had timely filed an amended complaint. He stated that he could not serve the summons because of circumstances outside his control, including an involuntary commitment to a medical facility. The opinion states that 145 days had passed since the original summons was issued.

Court’s reasoning

The court noted that self-represented plaintiffs must still follow procedural requirements. It also stated that reasonable allowances should be made to protect self-represented litigants from accidentally losing their rights. Based on the circumstances described in the order, the court allowed Henryx additional time to complete service.

Ruling

The court directed Henryx to serve the amended complaint and summons on the defendants by January 29, 2024. The order warned that failure to properly serve the defendants may result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was also directed to mail Henryx a copy of the order, the docket sheet, and materials from a specified filing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.