Manzano v. Capitol One

District Court, S.D. New York

Manzano v. Capitol One

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONALD ADDISON MANZANO, Plaintiff, 24-CV-00414 (JLR) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE CAPITAL ONE, Defendant. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. By order dated January 24, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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,

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)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant Capital One 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.

1 Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served a summons and the 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 90 days after the date the summons is issued, 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). 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 instructed to (1) issue a summons for Capital One, (2) complete the USM-285 form with the address for Defendant, (3) deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service, and (4) mail Plaintiff an information package. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2024 New York, New York

nited States District Judge

DEFENDANT AND SERVICE ADDRESS Capital One 1680 Capital One Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Reference

Status
Unknown