Wise v. JP Morgan Chase

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT VSBUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED .

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +", Ble DOC#; CAMILLE WILLIE MAE WISE, DATE FILED: 7/21/2021 Plaintiff, 21-CV-3718 (VSB) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE JP MORGAN CHASE, Defendant.

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq, alleging that Defendant used deceptive practices in the collection of a debt. By order dated July 15, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis IFP). (Doc. 4.)

Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, she is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App’x 50, 52 (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 JP Morgan Chase 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 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 Defendant.

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 issue a summons, complete the USM-285 form with the address for JP Morgan Chase, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2021 wr New York, New York wy LZ ta, VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES JP Morgan Chase 880 Powder Mill Rd. Wilmington, DE 19807