USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : AARON ABADI, : : Plaintiff, : : 23 Civ. 3618 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER OF SERVICE LYFT, INC., : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and

, 1986, alleging that Defendant discriminated against him based on his disability. By Order dated May 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. 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.1 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) (requiring the court to order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Lyft, Inc. 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

1 Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within ninety days of the date a complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served the summons and the Complaint until the Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered that the summons be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until ninety days after the date the summons is issued. summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant. If the complaint is not served within ninety days after the date the summons is issued, 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). Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. In sum, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to issue a summons for Lyft, Inc., to complete the USM-285 forms with the address for that Defendant, to deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service, and to mail an information package to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2023 Vb 22 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge