Carter v. Park

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 21, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-10887
StatusUnknown

This text of Carter v. Park (Carter v. Park) 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
Carter v. Park, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DARRYL C. CARTER, Plaintiff, 23-CV-10887 (JMF) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE MOLLY WASOW PARK et al., Defendants. JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Darryl C. Carter, of Bronx County, New York, brings this pro se action against the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services and Human Resources Administration, Molly Wasow Park, and ten unknown defendants alleging that they are violating his due process rights. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. By order dated December 22, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). DISCUSSION A. Service on Defendant Park 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.1 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)).

1 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 the summons and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services and Human Resources Administration, Molly Wasow Park, 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. If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is issued, 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). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. B. Doe Defendants Because Plaintiff does not make any allegations against the John Doe Defendants and does not supply sufficient information to permit the attorney for or agent of the Doe Defendants

to identify them, the Court declines, at this time, to issue an order under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997) (a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant), seeking the identities of the John Doe Defendants. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue a summons for the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services and Human Resources Administration, Molly Wasow Park, complete the USM-285 form with the address for Defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court if further instructed to send an information package to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may receive court documents by email by completing the attached form, Consent to Electronic Service.” 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: March 20, 2024 New York, New York JESSEAM-FURMAN nited States District Judge

? Tf Plaintiff consents to receive documents by email, Plaintiff will no longer receive court documents by regular mail.

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS

Molly Wasow Park Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services and Human Resources Administration 150 Greenwich Street Legal, 38th floor New York, New Yok 10007 esses DISTRI KER Sf. EE a NO 5 ey 4\ United States District Court 6 iT £/ Southern District of New York eS S, WB x ES ISTRICT Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically Parties who are not represented by an attorney and are not currently incarcerated may choose to receive documents in their cases electronically (by e-mail) instead of by regular mail. Receiving documents by regular mail is still an option, but if you would rather receive them only electronically, you must do the following: 1. Sign up fora PACER login and password by contacting PACER! at www.pacer.uscourts.gov or 1-800-676-6856; 2. Complete and sign this form. If you consent to receive documents electronically, you will receive a Notice of Electronic Filing by e- mail each time a document is filed in your case. After receiving the notice, you are permitted one “free look” at the document by clicking on the hyperlinked document number in the e-mail.? Once you click the hyperlink and access the document, you may not be able to access the document for free again. After 15 days, the hyperlink will no longer provide free access. Any time that the hyperlinkis accessed after the first “free look” or the 15 days, you will be asked for a PACER login and may be charged to view the document. For this reason, you should print or save the document during the “free look” to avoid future charges. IMPORTANT NOTICE Under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Civil Rule 5.2, and the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, documents may be served by electronic means. If you register for electronic service: 1. You will no longer receive documents in the mail; 2. Ifyou do not view and download your documents during your “free look” and within 15 days of when the court sends the e-mail notice, you will be charged for looking at the documents; 3. This service does not allow you to electronically file your documents; 4. It will be your duty to regularly review the docket sheet of the case.3

1 Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) (www.pacer.uscourts.gov) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator over the internet. 2 You must review the Court’s actual order, decree, or judgment and not rely on the description in the email notice alone. See ECF Rule 4.3 3 The docket sheet is the official record of all filings in a case. You can view the docket sheet, including images of electronically filed documents, using PACER or you can use one of the public access computers available in the Clerk’s Office at the Court.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carter v. Park, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-park-nysd-2024.