VAD Fe LITUVOYUOUIIELTINOPN LAUUUTHICTI Ord VOUTEL UTiy) YOrLofig raye LOLs USDC SDNY DOU T UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ue. □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FICED DOC #: MARKISHA WHITE, DATE FILED: B □□□ tg | Plaintiff, So SS -against- 19-CV-6552 (NSR) CRYSTAL RUN HEALTHCARE LLP; and ORDER OF SERVICE individually and jointly, THOMAS J. BOOKER, MD; JAMIE ALLEN; LESLIE RITTER, Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (‘Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17,

, and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131, alleging that her former employer discriminated against her based on her race, color, and familial status. By order dated August 6, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. Walker v. Schult,

, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also

(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,

(2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service); see also Murray v. Pataki,

(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 Crystal Run Healthcare LLP, Thomas J. Booker, Jamie Allen, and Leslie Ritter 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. 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 directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Crystal Run Healthcare LLP, Thomas J. Booker, Jamie Allen, and Leslie Ritter and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Court certifies under

(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,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. wae Dated: August (Co, AWN| □□ LEI White Plains, New York NELSON S. ROMAN United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES Crystal Run Healthcare LLP 95 Crystal Run Road Middletown, NY 10941 Thomas J. Booker, MD 95 Crystal Run Road Middletown, NY 10941 Jamie Allen 95 Crystal Run Road Middletown, NY 10941 Leslie Ritter 95 Crystal Run Road Middletown, NY 10941