UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WILBERT K.A. TURNER, Plaintiff, -against- 19-CV-6529 (LTS) (GWG) DET. CHRISTOPHER KELLY; DET. ERIN ORDER OF SERVICE MOORE; CHIEF JOHN FONTANEAU; CAPT. RICHARD CONKLIN; CITY OF STANFORD, Defendant(s). LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Metropolitan Correctional Center, brings this pro se action under

, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated August 5, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.1 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon,

(2d Cir. 2007). 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,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,”

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See

(b)(1). Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. Claims Against Stamford, Connecticut When a plaintiff sues a municipality under § 1983, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipality’s employees or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The

plaintiff must show that the municipality itself caused the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. See Connick v. Thompson,

(2011) (“A municipality or other local government may be liable under this section [1983] if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation.”) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York,

(1978)); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie,

(2d Cir. 2011). In other words, to state a § 1983 claim against a municipality, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Jones v. Town of East Haven,

(2d Cir. 2012); Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown,

(1997) (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s complaint is bereft of any facts suggesting that a municipal policy, custom, or practice of Stamford, Connecticut, played a role in the events giving rise to this complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Stamford, Connecticut are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. B. Order of Service Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. Walker v. Schult,

, 123 2 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 Det. Christopher Kelly, Det. Erin Moore, Chief John Fontaneau, and Capt. Richard Conklin 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 Plaintiff’s address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

3 CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Stamford, Connecticut. See

(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Defendants Det. Christopher Kelly, Det. Erin Moore, Chief John Fontaneau, and Capt. Richard

Conklin, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. 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. Dated: New York, New York August 27, 2019

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN United States District Judge

Copy mailed to: Wilbert K.A. Turner (No. 25352-083) MCC New York Metropolitan Correctional Center 150 Park Row New York, NY 10007

4 DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Det. Christopher Kelly #2048 1 Sawmill River Parkway Hawthorne, New York 10532 Det. Erin Moore 1 Sawmill River Parkway Hawthorne, New York 10532 Chief John Fontaneau Chief of Stamford Police Department 805 Bedford Street Stamford, CT. 06901 Richard Conklin Capt. Head of Stamford Narcotics 805 Bedford Street Stamford, CT. 06901

5