UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LAURALIE WARNER, Plaintiff, 21-CV-6209 (JPO) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE ASHFIELD HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant. J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action asserting claims for wrongful termination. Plaintiff’s allegations could be liberally construed as asserting federal claims under

, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, in addition to state law claims. By order dated July 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). DISCUSSION 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,

, 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 Defendant Ashfield Healthcare, LLC, 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 the 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 his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285 forms with the address

for Defendant Ashfield Healthcare, LLC, 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). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2021 New York, New York

J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

Ashfield Healthcare, LLC 1100 Virginia Drive, Suite 200 Fort Washington, PA 19034