From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arroyo v. Kent Sec. Servs.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 3, 2022
22 Civ. 73 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022)

Opinion

22 Civ. 73 (JPC)

03-03-2022

NOEL ARROYO, Plaintiff, v. KENT SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant.


ORDER OF SERVICE

John P. Cronan, United States District Judge

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 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 Kent Security Services 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 the 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 the 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.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue a summons for Kent Security Services, complete the USM-285 form with the address for this defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Arroyo v. Kent Sec. Servs.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 3, 2022
22 Civ. 73 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Arroyo v. Kent Sec. Servs.

Case Details

Full title:NOEL ARROYO, Plaintiff, v. KENT SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 3, 2022

Citations

22 Civ. 73 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022)