Constance Washington v. New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration; Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera

S.D. New York

Constance Washington v. New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration; Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera

DecidedNovember 25, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-08261

StatusUnknown

This text of Constance Washington v. New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration; Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera (Constance Washington v. New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration; Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera) 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

Constance Washington v. New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration; Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONSTANCE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-8261 (ALC) NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT ORDER OF SERVICE SYSTEM, OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION; DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ADAM SILVERA, Defendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law, alleging that Defendants violated her rights when they suspended her from her job. By order dated October 31, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. DISCUSSION 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.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). 1Although 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. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants New York State Unified Court System and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera 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 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 (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. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for each defendant, complete the USM-285 form with the address for each defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 29, 2) [Arde (Cae ew York, New Yor / econ. ANDREW CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street New York, NY 10004 Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera New York State Unified Court System 25 Beaver Street New York, NY 10004

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONSTANCE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-8261 (ALC) NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT ORDER OF SERVICE SYSTEM, OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION; DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ADAM SILVERA, Defendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law, alleging that Defendants violated her rights when they suspended her from her job. By order dated October 31, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. DISCUSSION 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.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). 1Although 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. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants New York State Unified Court System and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera 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 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 (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. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for each defendant, complete the USM-285 form with the address for each defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 29, 2) [Arde (Cae ew York, New Yor / econ. ANDREW CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street New York, NY 10004 Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera New York State Unified Court System 25 Beaver Street New York, NY 10004

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Constance Washington v. New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration; Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Adam Silvera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constance-washington-v-new-york-state-unified-court-system-office-of-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack