From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. City of Newburgh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 22, 2020
20-CV-7973 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-7973 (CS)

12-22-2020

REGINA LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWBURGH; JOSEPH DONAT, Defendants.


ORDER OF SERVICE :

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging violations of her rights. By order dated October 8, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).

DISCUSSION

Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. 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 the summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served 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) ("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 Defendants City of Newburgh and Joseph Donat 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 these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon these defendants.

Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.

The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for City of Newburgh and Joseph Donat, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 22, 2020

White Plains, New York

/s/_________

CATHY SEIBEL

United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

1. City of Newburgh

83 Broadway

Newburgh, NY 12550

2. Joseph Donat, City Manager

83 Broadway

Newburgh, NY 12550


Summaries of

Lewis v. City of Newburgh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 22, 2020
20-CV-7973 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Lewis v. City of Newburgh

Case Details

Full title:REGINA LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWBURGH; JOSEPH DONAT, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Dec 22, 2020

Citations

20-CV-7973 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2020)