i PACH E82 od UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WLECPROPEC ALLS SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ep gfe ih le atni BEUED: 4 Le [u SHANNON POULSON, Does soot, ame EF Plaintiff, 21-CV-2059 (VB) -against- EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, ORDER OF SERVICE INC.; R&B CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, Defendants.

VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in FCI Otisville, brings this pro se action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),

et seq., alleging that Defendants violated his rights. By order dated April 23, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).' DISCUSSION 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 summonses and the complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that

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

(b)(1).

summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date

summonses are 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 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Experian) and R&B Corporation of Virginia (R&B) 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 summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon the 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 form with the addresses for Experian and R&B, issue summonses, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2021 ius Iu White Plains, New York ~_VINCENTL.BRICCETTI United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES 1. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. c/o CT Corporation System 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 2. R&B Corporation of Virginia 11821 Rock Landing Drive Newport News, VA 23606