Rose v. Shah

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 19, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-09164
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WAYNE ROSE, Plaintiff, 21-CV-9164 (GK) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE RESHMA SHAH; AMIT SEHGAL, Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, asserting state law claims. By order dated November 10, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). 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 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 vy,

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 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 defendant. 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 instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Reshma Shah and Amit Sehgal and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. SO ORDERED, Dated: y coOoN pe New York, New York NC 1 C olf Sites States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

1, Reshma Shah 145235 Pavlo Place Waterford, VA. 20197 2. Amit Seghal 15235 Pavlo Place Waterford, VA. 20197