From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sansom v. Fresenius N. Am.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 19, 2022
22 Civ. 2349 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2022)

Opinion

22 Civ. 2349 (JPC)

05-19-2022

HANOOK SANSOM, Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant.


ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 Fresenius North America 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 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 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 instructed to issue a summons for Fresenius North America, complete the USM-285 form with the address for Defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sansom v. Fresenius N. Am.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 19, 2022
22 Civ. 2349 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2022)
Case details for

Sansom v. Fresenius N. Am.

Case Details

Full title:HANOOK SANSOM, Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 19, 2022

Citations

22 Civ. 2349 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2022)