Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 10, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-06286·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ZEV YOURMAN, : : Plaintiff, : : 24 Civ. 6286 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; COLUMBIA NEW YORK : PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; NEW YORK : PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; JULIO PUJOLIS; PAUL : FREEMAN; J. DOES 1-10, : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him because he is Jewish. By Order dated August 21, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Clerk of Court reassigned this action to the undersigned on April 8, 2025. 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.1 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).

1Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within ninety days of the date a complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service until the Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until ninety days after the date any summonses issue. To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 Form”) for 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 Defendants. If the Complaint is not served within ninety days after the date summonses are issued, Plaintiff may 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). 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 respectfully instructed to issue summonses for Defendants, complete the USM-285 Form with the address for Defendants, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is further respectfully directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2025 Veh 72 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

SERVICE ADDRESS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

Columbia University Office of General Counsel 412 Law Memorial Library 535 West 116th St. New York, NY 10027 Columbia New York Presbyterian Hospital c/o Risk Management 466 Lexington Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10017 New York Presbyterian Hospital c/o Risk Management 466 Lexington Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10017 Julio Pujolis New York Presbyterian Hospital c/o Risk Management 466 Lexington Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10017 Paul Freeman New York Presbyterian Hospital c/o Risk Management 466 Lexington Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10017

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

Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital (Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)