Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2024

Alvarez v. Bohill

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-01785
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alvarez v. Bohill, Judge Rearden granted Alvarez a final extension to serve Bohill, setting May 25, 2024, as the deadline.

Who this affects

Carlos Alvarez received additional time to serve Corrections Officer Bohill; Bohill remained subject to the service requirement, and the case faced dismissal if service was not completed by May 25, 2024.

What happened

In Alvarez v. Bohill, Carlos Alvarez asked for a fourth extension to serve Corrections Officer Bohill, whose first name was unknown. Alvarez’s lawyer said Alvarez had made seven requests for records from the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify Bohill, but paperwork and delivery problems had delayed the effort.

The court granted the application and extended the service deadline to May 25, 2024. The court said no further extensions would be granted and warned that failing to serve Bohill by that date would result in dismissal under the federal service rule. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 11.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order on February 28, 2024. The order addressed only the time for serving the defendant and did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alvarez v. Bohill · No. 1:23-cv-01785
Judge
Rearden
Date
Feb. 28, 2024

Background

Carlos Alvarez, through counsel, sued Corrections Officer Bohill, whose first name was unknown in the opinion. Alvarez requested a fourth extension of time to serve Bohill. Counsel represented that Alvarez had made seven records requests to the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision seeking information that could identify Bohill and permit service.

Counsel described delays involving a power-of-attorney document requested by the agency. A digital copy was rejected as illegible, while the physical copy was delayed by a courier and was not delivered to counsel until January 29, 2024. On February 7, 2024, the agency confirmed that the request had been forwarded to Fishkill Correctional Facility for action.

Court’s ruling

The court granted Alvarez’s application. It relied on counsel’s representations that Alvarez was close to obtaining the records allegedly needed to identify and locate Bohill and that the requested extension would be final. The court required Alvarez to file proof of service by May 25, 2024.

The court stated that no further extensions would be granted. It also warned that failure to serve Bohill by the deadline would result in dismissal under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without further notice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 11.

What the order decided

This was a procedural order about extending the deadline for service of process. The court did not decide the merits of Alvarez’s claims against Bohill.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.