Holliday v. Artist
7:23-cv-02410
S.D.N.Y.Aug 2, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Dorian Holliday, a detainee at Westchester County Correctional Facility, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint against Correctional Officer C.O. Artist.
- The Court granted Holliday in forma pauperis (IFP) status on May 25, 2023.
- Because Holliday is proceeding IFP, the Court directed the Clerk to prepare a summons and USM-285 and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on C.O. Artist.
- The Court extended the service timeline: service must be attempted within 90 days after the summons is issued; plaintiff must request an extension if service is not completed.
- The Court referred Holliday to the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) Pro Se Clinic for limited-scope legal assistance and directed the Clerk to mail an information package.
- The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for the purpose of an appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an IFP plaintiff is entitled to service by the U.S. Marshals Service | Holliday relies on IFP status to have the court/Marshals effect service | No specific defense presented | Court ordered Clerk to prepare USM-285 and directed Marshals to serve under authority for IFP plaintiffs (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) |
| Whether the Rule 4(m) 90-day service period applies and requires extension | Holliday needs time to be served after courts issues summons | No specific defense presented | Court extended the time to serve until 90 days after the summons is issued and instructed Holliday to request extensions if needed (citing Meilleur) |
| Whether Holliday must keep the Court apprised of address changes | Holliday must notify court of any change of address to enable service | No specific defense presented | Court warned that failure to update address may lead to dismissal; plaintiff responsible for notifying Court in writing |
| Whether plaintiff may receive limited-scope assistance from NYLAG | Holliday seeks clinic assistance to amend pleadings and navigate filings | NYLAG is not the court, has discretionary, limited-scope help and may decline | Court referred Holliday to NYLAG, provided intake/retainer forms, and described limits of assistance (no automatic appearance or representation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (IFP plaintiffs entitled to rely on court and U.S. Marshals for service)
- Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must request an extension if service not completed within Rule 4(m) period)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith standard for granting IFP status on appeal)