Phillips et al v. United States Postal Service
Filing
6
ORDER - Accordingly, any claims set forth in the Complaint on behalf of "The Wendler Family" are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ACCORDINGLY, by way of filing a letter with the Court by no later than January 28, 2022, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to timely serve the Summons and a copy of the Complaint upon the Defendant. PLAINTIFF IS ON NOTICE: If Plaintiff does not timely respond to this Order or does not show good cause for his failure to timely serve the Summons and Complaint, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this Court, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/11/2022. C/M (Valle, Christine)
Case 2:21-cv-05681-JS-ARL Document 6 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------X
DOMINIQUE PHILLIPS, and
THE WENDLER FAMILY,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
21-CV-5681(JS)(ARL)
-against-
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE,
Defendant.
---------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
Dominique Phillips, pro se
11 Mirin Avenue
P.O. Box 161
Roosevelt, New York 11575
For Defendant:
No appearances.
SEYBERT, District Judge:
On October 4, 2021, Dominique Phillips (“Phillips” or
“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced a purported wrongful
death action by filing Complaint in this Court on behalf of himself
and “The Wendler Family.”
(See Complaint, ECF No. 1.)
Complaint was signed only by Phillips, “Pro Se”.
The
(See id. at 3.)
There is no indication that he is a licensed attorney or has been
retained by The Wendler Family to represent it.
Rather, in the
accompanying Civil Cover Sheet, it indicates that both Phillips
and “The Wendler Family” are proceeding without counsel.
Civil
Cover
Sheet,
ECF
No.
1-1,
Part
I(c)
(in
identifying Plaintiffs Attorneys, stating “pro se”).)
section
(See
for
Case 2:21-cv-05681-JS-ARL Document 6 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 17
As an initial matter, “28 U.S.C. § 1654, which governs
appearances
in
federal
court,
.
.
.
allow[s]
two
types
of
representation: ‘that by an attorney admitted to the practice of
law
by
a
governmental
representing himself.’”
regulatory
body
and
that
by
a
person
Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.23d 137, 139
(2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926
F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“The statute does not permit ‘unlicensed laymen to represent anyone
else other than themselves.’”
Eagle Assocs.).
Lattanzio, 481 F.3d at 139 (quoting
Thus, while Phillips, a non-lawyer, may represent
himself, he cannot represent “The Wendler Family” in this Court.
Accordingly, any claims set forth in the Complaint on behalf of
“The Wendler Family” are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Second, after Phillips paid the Court’s filing fee on
October 12, 2021, on October 15, 2021, the Court sent Phillips a
letter together with: (1) a copy of the receipt of payment of the
filing fee, and (2) an original, stamped and issued Summons (with
a copy of same), with instructions for effecting service of the
Summons and Complaint upon the Defendant.
(See ECF No. 5.)
To
date, Plaintiff has not filed a return of service executed nor has
the Defendant appeared in this action.
2
Case 2:21-cv-05681-JS-ARL Document 6 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days
after the complaint is filed, the court -- on
motion or on its own after notice to the
plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time. But
if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
ACCORDINGLY, by way of filing a letter with the Court by
no later than January 28, 2022, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice for
failure to timely serve the Summons and a copy of the Complaint
upon the Defendant.
PLAINTIFF IS ON NOTICE:
If Plaintiff does
not timely respond to this Order or does not show good cause for
his
failure
to
timely
serve
the
Summons
and
Complaint,
the
Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b).
The Court reminds Plaintiff that he is required to advise
the Clerk of Court as to any changes of address and a failure to
do so may result in the dismissal of the case.
The Clerk of Court
is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his
address of record.
Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this Court, the
Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
3
Case 2:21-cv-05681-JS-ARL Document 6 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 19
from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore,
should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such
status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
See Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
_/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT_____
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
January _11 , 2022
Central Islip, New York
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?