Opinion
21-CV-01680 (PGG) (KHP)
07-14-2022
GABRIEL FLORES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 4) and is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. See 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 that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed [IFP] under 28 U.S.C § 1915.”). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Sherma Dunbar through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to: (1) complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for this Defendant using the address the Court will provide separately; and (2) issue the summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all documents necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon this Defendant.
The Court extends the time to serve Sherma Dunbar until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. If the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) 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) (it is the plaintiff's responsibility to request an extension of time for service).
The Clerk of Court is requested to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.