Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 3, 2024

Andrews v. Rico

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:23-cv-06968
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Andrews v. Rico, Judge Garnett ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the individual defendants.

Who this affects

Michael Andrews, Kevin Pico, Matthew Evans, the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the New York City Law Department.

What happened

Andrews v. Rico concerns Michael Andrews’s effort to serve two individual defendants after the court allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had received service addresses for the defendants from New York City’s Corporation Counsel, but the defendants had not yet been served.

The court directed the Clerk to prepare service forms and summonses and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order identifies one defendant as Kevin Pico, not Kevin Rico, based on Corporation Counsel’s representation, and identifies the other as Matthew Evans.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the Clerk to arrange service on Pico and Evans, mail the order to the New York City Law Department, and send Andrews a copy and an information package.

The detailed version

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

Case
Andrews v. Rico · No. 1:23-cv-06968
Judge
Garnett
Date
Apr. 3, 2024

Background

Michael Andrews had been granted permission to proceed IFP. The court explained that, in such cases, Andrews could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. A prior order directed New York City’s Office of the Corporation Counsel to find service addresses for two individual defendants under a procedure for helping plaintiffs identify and serve defendants whose addresses are unknown.

Corporation Counsel and the City later provided addresses for the individual defendants and requested additional time to respond to the complaint. The opinion states that the request was granted, but that no order directing service had been issued and the individual defendants had not been served as of April 3, 2024.

Identity of Defendant and Service Addresses

Corporation Counsel represented that the person named in the complaint as “FDNY EMS Kevin Rico” was actually named Kevin Pico and that no FDNY employee named Kevin Rico existed. The court therefore referred to that defendant as FDNY EMS Kevin Pico. The response identified a service address for Kevin Pico at New York City Fire Department Headquarters and a service address for Matthew Evans at the 103rd Precinct of the New York City Police Department.

Court’s Action

Judge Margaret M. Garnett instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process-and-return form for each individual defendant, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve them. The Clerk was also instructed to mail the order to the New York City Law Department and mail Andrews a copy of the order and an information package. This order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims.

Disposition

The court entered an order directing the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to proceed with service on the individual defendants.

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.