Newman v. Park

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAURICE NEWMAN, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6829 (JPC) (JW) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE MOLLY PARK; KIRSIS HAM, Defendants. JENNIFER E. WILLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants denied him due process when he applied for benefits from the New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”). He names as Defendants HRA Commissioner Molly Park, and Kirsis Ham, a WeCARE doctor and supervisor who assessed Plaintiff’s medical condition. By order dated September 19, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to service of summonses by the Court and the U.S. Marshals, Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), but the Clerk’s Office has not yet issued summonses. On October 2, 2024, the New York City Law Department filed a letter-motion on behalf of Defendant Park and the City of New York, asking for an extension of time to respond to the complaint.1 (ECF 6.)

1 Plaintiff did not name the City of New York as a defendant. CONCLUSION In light of the Law Department’s October 2, 2024 letter-motion, the Court (1) adds the City of New York as a defendant under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) orders the Law Department to inform the Court within ten days of the date of this order whether (a) Defendant Park intends to waive service of summons; (b) the Law Department will file a notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant Ham; and (c) if so, whether Ham intends to waive service of summons. The Court will address the City of New York and Park’s request for an extension of time to respond to the complaint after the Law Department responds to this Order. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 2024 . New York, New Yor Mt JE Ha vie United States Magistrate Judge