USDC SDNY ee DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED . SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK poc#: GARY GIORGOBIANI, DATE FILED: __ 11/20/2010 Plaintiff, 19-CV-8792 (VSB) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE FORTY-FIVE TEN HY, LLC; ANGIE CAHILL, Defendants. VERNON S. BRODERICK, 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 State Human Rights Law,

to 297, and the New York City Human Rights Law,

to 131, alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on his religion. By order dated October 16, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’ s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP’’). DISCUSSION 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 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 Forty-Five Ten HY, LLC and Angie Cahill 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. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.1 The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for Forty-Five Ten HY, LLC and Angie Cahill and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service.

1 Plaintiff has consented to receive electronic service of Court filings. (ECF No. 3.) The Court certifies under

(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,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 20, 2019 f □ New York, New York ff f | |

Vernon 8. Broderick United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES Forty-Five Ten HY LLC 16-15 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Angie Cahill Forty-Five Ten HY, LLC 16-15 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75201