USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRO F UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 1/5/2021 TYREEN E. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, 20-CV-11054 (AJN) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (‘Title VID’), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. $8 12112-12117, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. $§ 701 to 796, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. $8 2601 to 2654. The complaint can also be liberally construed as asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law $$ 290 to 297, and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 8§ 290 to 297. By order dated January 4, 2021, 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 ...1n [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 Defendant New York City Housing Authority 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 this 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 the defendant.

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. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285 form with the address for Defendant New York City Housing Authority and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect 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. Dated: January 5, 2021 New York, New York A de 0) \| tos ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

New York City Housing Authority 90 Church Street, 11thFloor New York, NY10007