From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lurch v. Berry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 23, 2020
20-CV-2312 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-2312 (PMH)

04-23-2020

ROBERT DEREK LURCH JR., Plaintiff, v. MARGARET BERRY, NURSE, Defendant.


ORDER OF SERVICE :

Plaintiff, currently detained in the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was incarcerated in Fishkill Correctional Facility, Defendant violated his rights. By order dated May 17, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).

By order dated July 16, 2019, this case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. (ECF No. 13). By decision and order dated March 10, 2020, the Northern District severed this claim that occurred in Fishkill Correctional Facility and transferred it back to this Court. (ECF No. 27).

Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

DISCUSSION

A. Service on Defendant

Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff 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 summons is 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 Defendant Margaret Berry, Nurse, 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 this Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon this Defendant.

Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if Plaintiff's 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 form with the address for Margaret Berry, Nurse, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service 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: New York, New York

April 23, 2020

/s/_________

PHILIP M. HALPERN

United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

1. Margaret Berry, Nurse

Fishkill Correctional Facility

18 Strack Drive

Beacon, New York 12508


Summaries of

Lurch v. Berry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 23, 2020
20-CV-2312 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020)
Case details for

Lurch v. Berry

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT DEREK LURCH JR., Plaintiff, v. MARGARET BERRY, NURSE, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Apr 23, 2020

Citations

20-CV-2312 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020)