Borjas v. New York City Department of Education

S.D. New York

Borjas v. New York City Department of Education

DecidedMarch 4, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-10829

StatusUnknown

This text of Borjas v. New York City Department of Education (Borjas v. New York City Department of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC#: DATE FILED: 3/4/2024 STACY A. BORJAS, Plaintiff, _apainst- 23 Civ. 10829 (AT) NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ORDER OF SERVICE. EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. Plaintiff alleges that her former employer discriminated and retaliated against her based on her sex and disability. By order dated January 12, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma patperis (“IFP’’), that is, without prepayment of fees. ECF No. 3. Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she 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)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants, New York City Department of Education, Tiawanna Perez, and Victor Garcia, 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 these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendants. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date summonses are issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63

! Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date summonses are issued.

(2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if her address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue summonses as to Defendants New York City Department of Education, Tiawanna Perez, and Victor Garcia, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for these defendants, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2024 □□□ New York, New York aS ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES New York City Department of Education 52 Chambers Street Room 320 New York, NY 10007 Tiawanna Perez, Principal PS 06 West Farms 100 E. Tremont Ave. Bronx, NY 10460 Victor Garcia, Assistant Principal PS 06 West Farms 100 E. Tremont Ave. Bronx, NY 10460

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC#: DATE FILED: 3/4/2024 STACY A. BORJAS, Plaintiff, _apainst- 23 Civ. 10829 (AT) NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ORDER OF SERVICE. EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. Plaintiff alleges that her former employer discriminated and retaliated against her based on her sex and disability. By order dated January 12, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma patperis (“IFP’’), that is, without prepayment of fees. ECF No. 3. Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she 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)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants, New York City Department of Education, Tiawanna Perez, and Victor Garcia, 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 these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendants. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date summonses are issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63

! Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date summonses are issued.

(2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if her address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue summonses as to Defendants New York City Department of Education, Tiawanna Perez, and Victor Garcia, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for these defendants, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2024 □□□ New York, New York aS ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES New York City Department of Education 52 Chambers Street Room 320 New York, NY 10007 Tiawanna Perez, Principal PS 06 West Farms 100 E. Tremont Ave. Bronx, NY 10460 Victor Garcia, Assistant Principal PS 06 West Farms 100 E. Tremont Ave. Bronx, NY 10460

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borjas-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack