Opinion
7:20-CV-2224 (NSR)
10-15-2021
JULES NGAMBO, Plaintiff, v. CHASE, Defendant.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF SERVICE
NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Jules Ngambo brings this pro se action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (ECF No. 2.) By order dated March 12, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3.) On July 23, 2021, the Court issued an Order of Service directing the Clerk of the Court to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for Defendant, issue a summons, and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant Chase. (ECF No. 6.) On July 27, 2021, the Court issued an Order stating “the Clerk of the Court is unable to complete the required forms without the address for Defendant Chase. Plaintiff is directed to inform the Court in writing of Defendant Chases address on or before August 11, 2021, so that the Clerk may complete the USM-285 forms.” (ECF No. 7.) On August 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter with an address for Defendant Chase:
C/O Jamie Dimon, CEO Chase Corporate headquarters 383 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10179-0001(ECF No. 8.)
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 Amended Complaint until the Court reviewed the Amended 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Chase through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a USM-285 form for Defendant Chase. 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 Defendant Chase at C/O Jamie Dimon CEO, Chase Corporate Headquarters, 318 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10179-0001.
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 the Court is directed to (1) complete the USM-285 forms with the address for Chase and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service; (2) mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package; (3) and show proof of service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.