Coleman v. New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

S.D. New York

Coleman v. New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

DecidedMay 1, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-03336

StatusUnknown

This text of Coleman v. New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Coleman v. New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) 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

Coleman v. New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK monccees DATE FILED: 5/1/2025 Sharelle Coleman, Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-03336 (JHR) (SDA) “against: ORDER OF SERVICE New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. By Order dated April 30, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Order, ECF No. 10.) Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to assistance from 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 through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each Defendant. The Clerk of Court further shall issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the necessary paperwork—including the Amended

‘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 effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue.

Complaint (ECF No. 5)—for the Marshals Service to effect service of the entire pleading 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 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff also supplies sufficient information to permit the Port Authority Police Department to identify the Jane Doe employee who, on August 9, 2024, along with Defendants Rana and Jeffrey, interacted with Plaintiff at her home. It is therefore ORDERED that the Port Authority Police Department ascertain the identity of this individual and the address where they may be served. The Port Authority Police Department shall provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 30 days of being served with the summons and complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York May 1, 2025

STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT 1. New York State Office of the New York State Attorney General 28 Liberty Street Ste 16th Floor New York, NY 10005

2. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

3. Port Authority Police Department 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

4. William Spinelli 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

5. Ronak Rana 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

6. Tonya Jeffrey 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

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

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK monccees DATE FILED: 5/1/2025 Sharelle Coleman, Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-03336 (JHR) (SDA) “against: ORDER OF SERVICE New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. By Order dated April 30, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Order, ECF No. 10.) Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to assistance from 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 through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each Defendant. The Clerk of Court further shall issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the necessary paperwork—including the Amended

‘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 effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue.

Complaint (ECF No. 5)—for the Marshals Service to effect service of the entire pleading 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 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Plaintiff also supplies sufficient information to permit the Port Authority Police Department to identify the Jane Doe employee who, on August 9, 2024, along with Defendants Rana and Jeffrey, interacted with Plaintiff at her home. It is therefore ORDERED that the Port Authority Police Department ascertain the identity of this individual and the address where they may be served. The Port Authority Police Department shall provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 30 days of being served with the summons and complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York May 1, 2025

STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT 1. New York State Office of the New York State Attorney General 28 Liberty Street Ste 16th Floor New York, NY 10005

2. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

3. Port Authority Police Department 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

4. William Spinelli 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

5. Ronak Rana 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

6. Tonya Jeffrey 4 World Trade Center 150 Greenwich Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10007

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coleman v. New York State, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-new-york-state-port-authority-of-new-york-and-new-jersey-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack