Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

S.D. New York

Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 14, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-10503·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK F. COLEMAN, DATE FILED:_ 1/14/2021 Plaintiff, ~against- 1:20-CV-10503 (AJN) NEN YORCCITYDEPARTMENTON □ —_ORDER OF SERVICE BRIDGEMOHAN; ATHEA LONG; LA’DRAYA MACON, Defendants. ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who appears pro se, asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. He sues his employer, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”), and DOHMH employees June Bridgemohan, Athea Long, and La’ Draya Macon. By order dated January 11, 2021, the court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that 1s, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). As 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. See 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... [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the Court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff 1s authorized to proceed IFP). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons and the complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint on DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for those defendants. The Court therefore

extends the time to serve DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued for those defendants. If the complaint is not served on those defendants 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 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (‘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 of the complaint on DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms (“USM-285 forms’) for those defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service of the complaint on those defendants. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to (1) issue summonses for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, June Bridgemohan, Athea Long, and La’Draya Macon, (2) complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses for those defendants, and (3) deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals 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: January 14, 2021 _ New York, New York A isto ALISONJ.NATHAN, United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

l. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Human Resources Unit 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132 2. June Bridgemohan New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132 3. Athea Long New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132 4. La’Draya Macon New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK F. COLEMAN, DATE FILED:_ 1/14/2021 Plaintiff, ~against- 1:20-CV-10503 (AJN) NEN YORCCITYDEPARTMENTON □ —_ORDER OF SERVICE BRIDGEMOHAN; ATHEA LONG; LA’DRAYA MACON, Defendants. ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who appears pro se, asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. He sues his employer, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”), and DOHMH employees June Bridgemohan, Athea Long, and La’ Draya Macon. By order dated January 11, 2021, the court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that 1s, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). As 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. See 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... [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the Court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff 1s authorized to proceed IFP). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons and the complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint on DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for those defendants. The Court therefore

extends the time to serve DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued for those defendants. If the complaint is not served on those defendants 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 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (‘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 of the complaint on DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms (“USM-285 forms’) for those defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service of the complaint on those defendants. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to (1) issue summonses for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, June Bridgemohan, Athea Long, and La’Draya Macon, (2) complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses for those defendants, and (3) deliver all documents necessary to effect service on those defendants to the U.S. Marshals 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: January 14, 2021 _ New York, New York A isto ALISONJ.NATHAN, United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

l. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Human Resources Unit 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132 2. June Bridgemohan New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132 3. Athea Long New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132 4. La’Draya Macon New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 42-09 28th Street Long Island City, New York 11101-4132

Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related