Harriram v. Fera

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRIYA HARRIRAM, Plaintiff, 21-CV-3696 (RA) v. ORDER OF SERVICE JOSEPH LUIS FERA; LEHMAN COLLEGE, Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that Defendant discriminated against her based on her race and national origin. The Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations as also asserting related state-law claims. See McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F. 3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that where a pro se plaintiff’s factual allegations supported claims under “well-known” provisions of state law, district courts must construe the complaint as asserting claims under those laws, “regardless of [plaintiff’s] failure to check the appropriate blank on a form complaint”). By order dated June 14, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). DISCUSSION A. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff brings this action asserting claims against Lehman College, but she does not name Lehman College as a Defendant in the caption of the complaint. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the caption of this action to add Lehman College as a Defendant. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that this Defendant may wish to assert. B. Service on Defendants Lehman College and Joseph Luis Fera 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. 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 summonses 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 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 summonses are 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 Defendants Lehman College and Joseph Luis Fera 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 the Defendants. 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 mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Clerk of Court is directed to add Lehman College as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Joseph Luis Fera and Lehman College, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service 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: June 21, 2021 J, New York, New York J ko □□ United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Joseph Luis Feral c/o Lehman College 250 Bedford Park Blvd. W Bronx, New York 10468 Lehman College 250 Bedford Park Blvd. W Bronx, New York 10468