James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York

S.D. New York

James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York

DecidedJanuary 13, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-10565

StatusUnknown

This text of James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York (James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York) 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

James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AYLEEN L. JAMES, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-10565 (LJL) BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ORDER OF SERVICE COLLEGE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK; EVA KOLBUSZ-KIJINE, Defendants. LEWIS LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging that her employer discriminated against her based on her race, age, and sex. By order dated January 5, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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. 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

summonses and 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 the 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 Borough of Manhattan Community College and Eva Kolbusz-Kijine 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 these 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 issue summonses, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the Borough of Manhattan Community College and Eva Kolbusz- Kijine, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service on these defendants. In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is available on the Court’s website. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). For more information, including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court’s website at nysd.uscourts. gov. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2021 eg New York, New York wi A LO Pc poe LEWIS LIMAN United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES Borough of Manhattan Community College 199 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Eva Kolbusz-Kijine Borough of Manhattan Community College 199 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007

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 AYLEEN L. JAMES, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-10565 (LJL) BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ORDER OF SERVICE COLLEGE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK; EVA KOLBUSZ-KIJINE, Defendants. LEWIS LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging that her employer discriminated against her based on her race, age, and sex. By order dated January 5, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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. 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

summonses and 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 the 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 Borough of Manhattan Community College and Eva Kolbusz-Kijine 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 these 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 issue summonses, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the Borough of Manhattan Community College and Eva Kolbusz- Kijine, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service on these defendants. In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is available on the Court’s website. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). For more information, including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court’s website at nysd.uscourts. gov. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2021 eg New York, New York wi A LO Pc poe LEWIS LIMAN United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES Borough of Manhattan Community College 199 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Eva Kolbusz-Kijine Borough of Manhattan Community College 199 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-borough-of-manhattan-community-college-city-of-university-of-new-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack