Opinion
1:20-CV-5050 (AT)
07-10-2020
FRANCIS ASSIFUAH, Plaintiff, v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ.; WILLIAMS COHEN LLP, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE :
Plaintiff Francis Assifuah, who alleges that he is currently held in immigration detention in the Henderson Detention Center, in Henderson, Nevada, brings this pro se action under the Court's diversity jurisdiction. He asserts claims against his former criminal defense attorney, Reuven L. Cohen, Esq., and Cohen's law firm, Williams Cohen LLP. By order dated July 6, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court directs service on the defendants.
As Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the Court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons and the complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint on the defendants until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for the defendants. The Court therefore extends the time to serve the defendants until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued for the defendants. If the complaint is not served on the defendants within that time, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to request an extension of time for service); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App'x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals' failure to effect service automatically constitutes 'good cause' for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).").
To allow Plaintiff to effect service on the defendants through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form ("USM-285 form") for each of the defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for the defendants, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service on the defendants.
Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so.
CONCLUSION
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.
The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to (1) issue summonses for Defendants Reuven L. Cohen, Esq., and Williams Cohen LLP, (2) complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses for those defendants, and (3) deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals Service.
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 IFP 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2020
New York, New York
/s/_________
ANALISA TORRES
United States District Judge
DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES
1. Reuven L. Cohen, Esq.
Cohen Williams LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 903
Los Angeles, California 90014
2. Cohen Williams LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 903
Los Angeles, California 90014