Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:21-cv-10541
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Labossiere v. Montefiore, Judge Seibel ordered another attempt to serve Brian Coto and extended the service deadline.
The order directly affects Plaintiff Wilfred Labossiere, Defendant Brian Coto, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service by setting a new service process and deadline.
What happened
In Labossiere v. Montefiore (Mount Vernon) Post Surgery Staff, the court addressed repeated failed attempts to serve Defendant Brian Coto with the lawsuit. Earlier service paperwork contained an incorrect facility, and the U.S. Marshals Service later could not locate Coto for service.
The court ordered the Clerk to prepare a new summons and service form, provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service, and arrange service of the Third Amended Complaint on Coto at Fishkill Correctional Facility. The court extended the service deadline to April 13, 2024, and said the plaintiff should request another extension if service was not completed by then.
Judge Cathy Seibel also required the plaintiff to notify the court of any address change and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal from this order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital · No. 7:21-cv-10541
- Cathy Seibel
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
The court had previously directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Defendant Brian Coto at Fishkill Correctional Facility. The Clerk mistakenly prepared service paperwork listing Downstate Correctional Facility instead. The Marshals Service could not serve Coto at that location. After the error was reported, the court again ordered service at Fishkill Correctional Facility, but no receipt and return of service was filed. The court later learned that the Marshals Service had been unable to locate Coto to complete service.
The court asked Assistant Attorney General Shevlin to provide updated information about where Coto could be served. Shevlin reported that Coto was still employed at Fishkill Correctional Facility.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to prepare a new U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, commonly called a USM-285 form, for Coto; issue a new summons; and provide the Marshals Service with all paperwork needed to serve the summons and the Third Amended Complaint on Coto.
The court extended the time for service to April 13, 2024. It stated that if the Third Amended Complaint was not served by that date, the plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. The court also reminded the plaintiff to notify it in writing of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to do so.
Disposition
The court entered an Order of Service directing another attempt to serve Coto. It 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 in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.