Theresa G. Bailey v. The City of New York, et al.

S.D. New York

Theresa G. Bailey v. The City of New York, et al.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 11, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-10152·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: THERESA G. BAILEY, DATE FILED:__ 3/11/2026 Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-10152 (MMG) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., = Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: This is an employment discrimination case brought by pro se Plaintiff Theresa G. Bailey. She filed her complaint on December 6, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. The same day, she requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. The case was re-assigned to the undersigned on February 9, 2026. The next day, the Court issued an order of service. Dkt. No. 7. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff— must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” FED. R. CIv. P. 4(m). Over ninety (90) days have passed since Plaintiff filed her complaint, and there is no proof of service on record. Nevertheless, through no fault of Plaintiff's, her case languished for over two months before its re-assignment. As a Plaintiff proceeding IFP, Plaintiff was entitled to the Court’s assistance in effectuating service. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 199, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013). But she could not receive that assistance until February 9, 2026, when this matter was re-assigned and the undersigned issued an order directing service. As a result, fairness and equity require additional time for service. Accordingly, under the Court’s Rule 4 authority, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS the deadline for service until May 29, 2026. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking an additional extension later, if appropriate or necessary. As a reminder, although Plaintiff is entitled to assistance in serving Defendants, it remains her responsibility to request a further extension if service is not effectuated by May 29, 2026. Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012). Dated: March 11, 2026 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: THERESA G. BAILEY, DATE FILED:__ 3/11/2026 Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-10152 (MMG) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., = Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: This is an employment discrimination case brought by pro se Plaintiff Theresa G. Bailey. She filed her complaint on December 6, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. The same day, she requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. The case was re-assigned to the undersigned on February 9, 2026. The next day, the Court issued an order of service. Dkt. No. 7. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff— must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” FED. R. CIv. P. 4(m). Over ninety (90) days have passed since Plaintiff filed her complaint, and there is no proof of service on record. Nevertheless, through no fault of Plaintiff's, her case languished for over two months before its re-assignment. As a Plaintiff proceeding IFP, Plaintiff was entitled to the Court’s assistance in effectuating service. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 199, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013). But she could not receive that assistance until February 9, 2026, when this matter was re-assigned and the undersigned issued an order directing service. As a result, fairness and equity require additional time for service. Accordingly, under the Court’s Rule 4 authority, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS the deadline for service until May 29, 2026. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking an additional extension later, if appropriate or necessary. As a reminder, although Plaintiff is entitled to assistance in serving Defendants, it remains her responsibility to request a further extension if service is not effectuated by May 29, 2026. Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012). Dated: March 11, 2026 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Theresa G. Bailey v. The City of New York, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Theresa G. Bailey v. The City of New York, et al. (Theresa G. Bailey v. The City of New York, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related