Greenhill v. Nordstrom Rack
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-03150
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Greenhill v. Nordstrom Rack, Judge Roman ordered the Marshals Service to serve the defendants in Greenhill’s civil-rights lawsuit.
Nathaniel K. Greenhill, the named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order facilitates service of Greenhill’s lawsuit but does not decide the defendants’ liability.
What happened
In Greenhill v. Nordstrom Rack, Nathaniel K. Greenhill, who is representing himself, sued Nordstrom Rack and several individuals. He alleges excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution under a federal civil-rights law, along with state-law claims. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Because Greenhill was allowed to proceed without advance payment, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the summonses and other required papers. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. Greenhill must ask for more time if service is not completed by then and must notify the court of any address change.
Judge Nelson S. Roman issued an order of service. The order handled service and related filing matters; it did not decide whether Greenhill’s claims were valid or whether any defendant was liable.
The detailed version
- Greenhill v. Nordstrom Rack · No. 7:24-cv-03150
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
Nathaniel K. Greenhill, who is incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. He also brought state-law claims against Nordstrom Rack, Anthony Garcia, Rickey Agyemang, Police Officer Juan Santana, and Police Officer John Fitzsimmons. The court had previously granted Greenhill permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service ruling
Because Greenhill was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court stated that he was entitled to help from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the usual 90-day service period so that it would run from the date the summonses are issued, rather than from the date the complaint was filed.
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service. The court also instructed the Clerk to send Greenhill an information package and a copy of the order. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Greenhill should request an extension of time. He must also notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Disposition and scope
The court entered an order directing preparation and service of the case papers. It did not rule on the merits of the excessive-force, false-arrest, malicious-prosecution, or state-law claims. The caption identifies one defendant as Police Officer Juan Santana, while the service-address section identifies that defendant as Police Officer Juan Santa; the opinion does not explain the difference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.