Magee v. The Walt Disney Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I □ □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 7 QUINCY MAGEE, | i FEB 10 □□□ | Plaintiff Besos

-against- 19-CV-10274 (AJN) THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY: THE ORDER OF SERVICE AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, Defendants. ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, invokes the Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and asserts state-law claims of breach-of-contract. By order dated January 13, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff 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 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 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 Walt Disney Company and American Broadcasting Company 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 Plaintiff's address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses, complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the Walt Disney Company and the American Broadcasting Company, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect 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). Chambers will mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note its mailing on the docket. SO ORDERED. . & + & Dated: ¢ ey wor New York, New York A\ 4 “ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES 1. The Walt Disney Company 500 S. Buena Vista Street Burbank, CA 91521 2. The American Broadcasting Company 77 West 66" Street New York, NY 10023