From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stancu v. N.Y.C./Parks Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 21, 2020
20-CV-10371 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-10371 (ALC)

12-21-2020

RYAN STANCU, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY/PARKS DEPT., Defendant.


ORDER OF SERVICE :

Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on his religion. Plaintiff's complaint can also be construed as asserting claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. See McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that where a pro se plaintiff's factual allegations supported claims under "well-known" provisions of state law, district courts must construe the complaint as asserting claims under those laws, "regardless of [plaintiff's] failure to check the appropriate blank on a form complaint"). By order dated December 11, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

DISCUSSION

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 New York City/Parks Dept. 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 issue a summons, complete the USM-285 form with the address for New York City/Parks Dept., and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 21, 2020

New York, New York

/s/_________

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.

United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

New York City/Parks Dept.

100 Church Street, 4th Floor

New York, New York 10007


Summaries of

Stancu v. N.Y.C./Parks Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 21, 2020
20-CV-10371 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Stancu v. N.Y.C./Parks Dep't

Case Details

Full title:RYAN STANCU, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY/PARKS DEPT., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Dec 21, 2020

Citations

20-CV-10371 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2020)