United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF SERVICE
L. CARTER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings this pro se action under the Family Medical
Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C, §§ 2601 to 2654, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the
New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§
290 to 297. Plaintiff alleges that her employer discriminated
against her based on her age and disability, and the
complaint could be liberally construed as also asserting
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213. By order dated December 30,
2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed in
Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint,
or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v.
Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir.
1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these
grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se
pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66,
72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the
"strongest [claims] that they suggest,"
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474
(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted) (emphasis original).
Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she 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 plaintiffs responsibility to
request an extension of time for service); see also
Murray v. Pataki, 378 Fed.Appx. 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).").
allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants City of New
York Department of Education, and Maureen Fullerton 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
a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the
paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect
service upon these defendants.
must notify the Court in writing if her address changes, and
the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.
Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to
Plaintiff, together with an information package.
Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285
forms with the addresses for Defendants City of New York
Department of Education, and Maureen Fullerton, and deliver
to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to
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 in forma pauperis 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