Flores v. The State of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN ANDREW FLORES, Plaintiff, No. 24-CV-2969 (RA) v. ORDER THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL., Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the attached request filed by Plaintiff via mail. Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) extend the deadline for service upon Defendant Montigny, (2) “order [the] service address for” Defendants Montigny and Doe, and (3) to identify Defendant Doe. First, Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline for service upon Defendant Montigny is granted. Per the Court’s order of May 1, 2024, the Clerk of Court was directed to issue a summons and to provide the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary to effect service on Defendant Montigny. See ECF No. 6, at 3. On May 9, 2024, the summons was issued. See ECF No. 7. On August 6, 2024, the Marshals Service reported that it was unable to execute service because Defendant Montigny was not on an “approved list,” “does not work at that building,” and is “listed as on leave and not at a facility.” See ECF No. 11. “The fact that the Marshals Service was unable to locate [Defendant Montigny] at the address provided by [Plaintiff] . . . does not prevent the Court from finding that there was good cause for [Plaintiff’s] failure to timely serve [Defendant].” Sidney v. Wilson, 228 F.R.D. 517, 523

(S.D.N.Y. 2005). Where “a pro se prisoner-litigant proceeding in forma pauperis” has “provide[d] the information necessary to identify the defendant,” as Plaintiff has here, courts have uniformly held that the Marshals’ failure to effect service automatically constitutes good cause.” Ruddock v. Reno, 104 F. App’x 204, 206-07 (2d Cir. 2004). Second, courts have held that it is not a requirement of a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to provide a defendant’s accurate address, as long as the defendant’s identity is reasonably identifiable. Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“It is unreasonable to expect incarcerated and unrepresented pprisoner-litigants to provide the current addresses of prison-guard defendants who no longer work at _ the prison.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sidney, 228 F.R.D. at 523 & nll (holding the same in a case where the plaintiff provided the address of the defendant-officer’s former workplace, but the defendant had been — suspended from employment). The Court thus directs the New York State Attorney General to provide the address at which Defendant Montigny can be served no □□□□□ than September 6, 2024. See Murray, 378 F. App’x at 52 (stating that a district court “could have ordered the other defendants . . . to provide the Marshals with [a defendant’s] last known address”); Green vy. Schriro, No. 18-cv-01641, 2019 WL 1765220, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2019). Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiff to serve Defendant Montigny is hereby extended for 90 days from the date the Attorney General provides the address at which Defendant Montigny can be served. Finally, on May 1, 2024, the Court ordered the New York State Attorney General to ascertain the identity of Defendant John Doe and_ to provide Plaintiff with his badge number and an _ address where he may be served within sixty days of its Order. See ECFNo. 6, at 3. No later than September 6, 2024, the Attorney General’s Office shall file a letter on the docket providing this information.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Further, the Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order to the New York State Attorney General at: New York State Attorney General’s Managing Attorney’s Office, 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10005.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2024 New York, New York Ke ( Hon. Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

2, Fy Po 6 og | Bo BY ya 1 ge oT NA 6 Ea a □ 0 CG fg" i □ 7 ¢ Ao Soe y So 2 5g. 8 org oe 8 RO SY pe Pp Pep Wr pp , so | □□ Bp ES 3% po Pog | Hy me is : : : : : : td : ; : i □ □ i ! : A □□ i QO : : poe EG 7 3 ° 4 | Po DP 8 BS □□ p pe 8 33 be □□ Bp RO So pg po og (yo SF A 4H 2% □ Jue . 7 pO | i i | Bo 2 7 bp Mo Qo SP oy a tee a 4 4,4 BASE fo 88 NEO : Ie & 0 □□ S □ $ fo 4 gS al a § g 8 Oh po. A ( □□ ad oy Hg Me oO ede Y p00 SHS PoE = OO t ug 4 6 Ae 4 EF □□ Ge OG t+ Be fo | po 24 064 Fg “i 8 Bey, 7 | ! | de soma ‘

ES" IEE ES Wectensaeds Aveace pal □□□ USP BEES RT be ok □□□□ □ at . eee □□□ □□ □□ cee OWS oie SR saad a □□□ Mpg □ □ 9 pee □□□ □□ ae □□□ □□□□ Le se is & Macc AS Ye eae, ck “SS her & co a mI a □□ 5 . > 3 ont, Rene . . Fe ee Worted Yeete, WDadiecct Clouck fs ga Wie é □ sa en 4448 45 oo al Ny she COON owl =p ans he EO a Teme WS ee gy Pie “yo WA i pe TA CN j i pos WS. Covetlose Geo Ceact “Erveeek Bon. Bd ab, i rea a why Wy hope em Ni AY Looe y

yale Heat ) ny,