From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wimberly v. Auto. Mastermind, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 22, 2020
20-CV-2880 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 22, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-2880 (VEC)

05-22-2020

JASON WIMBERLY, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOTIVE MASTERMIND, INC., Defendant.


ORDER OF SERVICE :

Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of his race, sex, disability, and genetic status. By order dated May 11, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP").

DISCUSSION

Because 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. 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 Automotive Mastermind, Inc., 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 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 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 address for Automotive Mastermind, Inc., and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service on this defendant.

In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is available on the Court's website. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). For more information, including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court's website at nysd.uscourts.gov.

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: 5/22/2020

New York, New York

/s/_________

VALERIE CAPRONI

United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

1. Automotive Mastermind, Inc.

1 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016


Summaries of

Wimberly v. Auto. Mastermind, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 22, 2020
20-CV-2880 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Wimberly v. Auto. Mastermind, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JASON WIMBERLY, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOTIVE MASTERMIND, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: May 22, 2020

Citations

20-CV-2880 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 22, 2020)