Davidson v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RONALD DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, 22-CV-764 (RA) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Defendant. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794; Section 2703 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(19); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; various federal regulations; and the New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq. and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-10, et seq., alleging that Defendant discriminated against him because of a disability. By order dated February 1, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, to waive the filing fees. Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff 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)). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that the summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons 1s issued. If the complaint is not served 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) (“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 on Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for the 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 the defendant. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. SO ORDERED. Uj Dated: April 15, 2022 KA New York, New York ~~ RONNIEABRAMS) United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation 125 Worth Street New York, N.Y. 10013