Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 29, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-02944
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/29/2021 CORY HOLLAND SR. aka “KING,” Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 2944 (AT) LIONSGATE ENTERTAINMENT AND ORDER OF SERVICE FILMS, et al., Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that Defendants defamed him and placed him a false light. The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the diversity of citizenship statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. By order dated April 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). As set forth below, the Court directs service on Defendants Lionsgate, Curtis Jackson, Starz Inc., and Courtney A. Kemp. DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he 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 summonses 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 Lionsgate, Jackson, Starz, and Kemp 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 his 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 further instructed to issues summonses, complete the USM-285 forms for Lionsgate, Jackson, Starz, and Kemp, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2021 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Lionsgate 2700 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 Curtis Jackson 264 W. 40th St., Fl. 15 New York, NY 10018 Starz Inc 8900 Liberty Circle Englewood, CO 80112 Courtney A. Kemp 8900 Liberty Circle Englewood, CO 80112