Scodtt v. NYC Department of Homeless Services

Filing 6

ORDER OF SERVICE: The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to issue a summons for NYC Department of Homeless Services, complete the USM-285 form with the address for Defendant, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may receive court documents by email by completing the attached form, Consent to Electronic Service. The 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 IFP 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 nonfrivolous issue). (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 5/8/2024) (rro) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KIANNAA SCODTT,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 5/8/2024

Plaintiff,
24-CV-2132 (MKV)

-against-

ORDER OF SERVICE

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS
SERVICES,
Defendant.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, alleging that her employer
discriminated against her based on her religion. The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as also
asserting claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. See McLeod v. Jewish
Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that where a pro se plaintiff’s factual
allegations supported claims under “well-known” provisions of state law, district courts
must construe the complaint as asserting claims under those laws, “regardless of [plaintiff’s]
failure to check the appropriate blank on a form complaint”). By order dated March 26, 2024,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without
prepayment of fees.
DISCUSSION
Because 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. 1 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6

Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90
days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and the
complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore
extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date the summons is issued.

1

(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)).
In order to allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant NYC Department of Homeless
Services 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 Defendant. 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 Defendant.
If the complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons is issued, 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).
Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if her 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 a summons for NYC Department of
Homeless Services, complete the USM-285 form with the address for Defendant, and deliver all
documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is further
directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may receive court documents by
email by completing the attached form, Consent to Electronic Service. 2
The 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf.

2

If Plaintiff consents to receive documents by email, Plaintiff will no longer receive court documents by regular mail.

2

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates
good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2024
New York, New York
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
United States District Judge

3

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS
NYC Department of Homeless Services
33 Beaver Street
New York, New York 10004