Edwards v. Mangion

| DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | SLECTROPMICALLY FILED | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | Pera ie fT geo □ nena nnenen □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ | DATE FILED ZU4ley CLINT EDWARDS, TR i eee Plaintiff, V. > AMENDED ORDER OF SERVICE JEREMY MANGION, NATHANIEL : 20 CV 7370 (VB) RAWICKI, ADAM SHANER, ASHLYN : MORSE, WILLIAMS JJ WALSH, and : CHRISTOPHER MELTSAKOS, : Defendants. ec a ee me ee a a ee On September 9, 2020, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action by filing a complaint, alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. # 2).

On September 16, 2020, the Court issued an Order of Service directing the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants named by plaintiff, including defendants Mangion, Rawicki, Shaner, Morse, Walsh, and Meltsakos. (Doc. #6).

On February 17, 2021, Marshal’s Process Receipt and Return of Service Unexecuted forms were filed on the docket, indicating defendants Mangion, Rawicki, Shaner, Morse, Walsh, and Meltsakos were unable to be served because “legal department refused to take process because they don’t accept it in medical facility. All process should be addressed to the physician’s address.” (Docs. ##9-14).

The Court has conferred with the Office of Pro Se Litigation, which has suggested that defendants be served through the County of Westchester, Law Department.

Accordingly, to allow plaintiff to effect service on defendants Mangion, Rawicki, Shaner, Morse, Walsh, and Meltsakos through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for these defendants. The Clerk is further instructed to issue a summons listing these defendants and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these defendants. A new service address for these defendants is appended to this Order.

Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address listed on the docket.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an : appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

Dated: February 19, 2021 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge County of Westchester Law Department Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601