Williams Steele v. Equifax

Usbe SDNY : DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ce wate SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK nate flan, ODOT BEATRICE SHIRLEY WILLIAMS STEELE, Plaintiff, 21-CV-5997 (AJN) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE EQUIFAX; TRANSUNION; EXPERIAN, Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seqg., alleging that Defendants provided inaccurate information on her credit reports. By order dated July 26, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).

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 summonses and the complaint be served within 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 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, 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 Defendants Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian 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 her 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 forms with the addresses for Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian, issue summonses, and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2021 A □ \) Aster New York, New York afue ALISONJ.NATHAN United States District Judge DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES 1. Equifax P.O. Box 740241 Atlanta, GA 30374 2. TransUnion Consumer Solutions P.O. Box 2000 Chester, PA 19016 3. Experian P.O. Box 4500 Allen, TX 75013