Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2024

Robertson v. Fluerinord

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:23-cv-04977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Robertson v. Fluerinord, Judge Koeltl ordered paperwork for Marshals Service to serve Officer John Theos and reminded Robertson about service and address duties.

Who this affects

Dale Robertson, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, Officer John Theos, Officer Anthony Lopez, Officer Christopher Bujarski, and the Elmsford Village Police Department.

What happened

In Robertson v. Fluerinord, Dale Robertson, who is representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law that allows lawsuits over violations by government officials. Robertson had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance and had filed an amended complaint, but it had not yet been served on the Elmsford defendants.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork and summons needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Officer John Theos. The opinion also lists service information for Officer Anthony Lopez, Officer Christopher Bujarski, and the Elmsford Village Police Department. If the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Robertson should ask for more time.

Judge John G. Koeltl also instructed Robertson to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the court may dismiss the case if he does not do so. The order addressed service and case administration; it did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Robertson v. Fluerinord · No. 1:23-cv-04977
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Mar. 21, 2024

Background

Dale Robertson, appearing without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. Robertson filed an amended complaint on January 5, 2024, adding defendants. That amended complaint had not yet been served on the Elmsford Police Department, Anthony Lopez, or Christopher Bujarski, identified in the opinion as the Elmsford Defendants.

After a February 8, 2024 telephone conference, the court ordered Robertson to file a second amended complaint by February 23, 2024. The opinion states that no second amended complaint had been filed. The court had also extended the defendants’ deadline to file motions to dismiss the amended complaint until 21 days after the amended complaint was served on the Elmsford Defendants.

Service Order

Because Robertson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Officer John Theos, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve him.

The opinion lists the following service information:

- Officer Anthony Lopez, Shield No. 47, Elmsford Village Police Department, 15 South Stone Avenue, Elmsford, New York 10523 - Officer Christopher Bujarski, Shield No. 51, Elmsford Village Police Department, 15 South Stone Avenue, Elmsford, New York 10523 - Elmsford Village Police Department, 15 South Stone Avenue, Elmsford, New York 10523

The court stated that if the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Robertson should request an extension of time. The court also required him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition and Classification

The court entered an order directing service-related actions by the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service. It did not rule on the merits of Robertson’s claims or decide any motion to dismiss. This is a procedural order concerning service of process and case administration.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.