Levine v. Fenstermaker

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 5, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-02543·Unknown

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/5/2023 RICHIE FOSTER LEVINE, Plaintiff, 23-CV-2543 (NSR) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE LINDA FRANCES LEE FENSTERMAKER, Defendant. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this civil rights action under the Ex Parte Young doctrine against Linda Fenstermaker, the Regional Director of New York State’s Division of Human Rights (““DHR”), in her individual and official capacities. Plaintiff primarily asserts due process and equal protection violations, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, based on Fenstermaker’s refusal to process his complaints, which allege that hiring bars for people with convictions are discriminatory. By order dated March 27, 2023, the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP’’), that is, without prepayment of fees. 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 ... 10 [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 is 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 Linda Fenstermaker 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 this 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 this defendant. Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if Plaintiff’s address changes, and the Court may

dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is instructed to mail Plaintiff an information package and copy of this Order. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for Linda Fenstermaker, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for this defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2023 White Plains, New York NELSON S.ROMAN United States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS Linda Fenstermaker Regional Director New York State Division of Human Rights 7-11 South Broadway, Suite 314 White Plains, NY 10601 SD lee Pe ew Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services New York ME Legal Assistance Group to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys.

Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Civil Litigants in District Court for the Southern District Of New Yor|

NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York is a fre clinic staffed by attorneys, law students and paralegals to assist those who are themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits in the outhern District of New York. The clinic does not provide full representation. The clinic, is not part of or run by the court, assists litigants with federal civil cases including involving civil rights, employment discrimination, labor law, social security benefit: and tax.

Contact the Clinic: (212) 659-6190 or complete our online intake form (found here: A staff member will contact you within a few days.

looking for assistance can also contact the clinic at the kiosk located across the hall the pro se clinic office in the courthouse.

this time, the clinic offers remote consultations only. Requests for in- appointments will be reviewed on a case-to-case basis. and Hours: Marshall United States Courthouse

Room LL22 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 (212) 659 6190 Open weekdays 10 a.m. — 4 p.m. Closed on federal and court holidays

ii □□□□ □

= = eee 14 ESE ° . New York ME Legal Assistance Group District of New York

The NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York provides free limited legal assistance to individuals who are representing themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits in federal court in Manhattan and White Plains. The clinic is staffed by attorneys, law students, and paralegals. Information given to clinic staff is confidential.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Levine v. Fenstermaker, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Levine v. Fenstermaker (Levine v. Fenstermaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murray v. Pataki
378 F. App'x 50 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)