UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Nadine Joachin, Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-07592 (VSB) (SDA) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff paid the relevant fees to brings this pro se action alleging a hodgepodge of claims against multiple defendants.1 (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at PDF p. 8.) The Clerk of Court is 0F respectfully requested to issue summonses to the following defendants that have been identified in the Complaint: ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center2 1249 Fifth Avenue 1F New York, New York 10029

Health Equity P.O. Box 14374 Lexington, Kentucky 40512

Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc.3 6 Rhoads Drive, Suite 7 2F Utica, New York 13502

1 In issuing this Order of Service, that Court is not passing on the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. 2 The Complaint lists this defendant’s name as “Arch Care Terrence Cook Cardinal” at the above address. However, the Court takes judicial notice that the correct name of the entity is “ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center.” (See https://www.archcare.org/terence-cardinal/) 3 The Complaint lists this defendant’s name as “BPAS” at the above address. However, the Court takes judicial notice that the correct name of the entity is “Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc.” (See https://bpas.com/who-we-are/locations/) United Staffing Solutions 1385 Broadway, 10th floor New York, New York 10018

Synchrony Bank 180 West Election Road, Suite 125 Draper, Utah 84020

Plaintiff is directed to serve the summonses and complaint on the Defendants listed above within 90 days of the issuance of the summonses. If within those 90 days, Plaintiff has not either served Defendants or requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss the claims against Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to adequately identify Defendant 5 (listed as “Ride Safely”), Defendant 6 (listed as “Neigbors”) or Defendant 7 (listed as “Chen”), stating for each: “Address will be provided later.” (See Compl. at PDF p. 12.) If Plaintiff intends to assert claims against these defendants, she shall provide their proper names and addresses in an amended pleading to be filed within 14 days. If she fails to do so, then no summonses will be issued for these defendants. The caption of the Complaint has handwritten on it “NYPD” and “USPS” (see Compl. at PDF p. 1), but neither of these defendants is among the eight defendants listed by Plaintiff in the Complaint. (See id. at PDF pp. 2-3, 12.) The Clerk of Court is directed to remove “NYPD” and “USPS” from the ECF docket in this case. If Plaintiff intended to assert claims against the New York City Police Department, she should note that it is a non-suable agency of the City of New York. See Jenkins v. City of New York,

, 93 (2d Cir. 2007). If Plaintiff intends to assert claims against “USPS,” she must file an amended pleading listing it as defendant, as well as the claims she asserts against it. Per footnote 2 of this Order, the Clerk of Court is requested to change the name of the first defendant listed on the ECF docket from “Arch Care” to “ArchCare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center” and, per footnote 3, to change the name of the third defendant from “BPAS” to “Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc.” SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York September 17, 2025 dt Rick A, Can STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge