Adrian A. Velez v. OnePlus Technology Co. (Shenzhen), Ltd.

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee RONICALLY FILED ADRIAN A. VELEZ, ae FILED: _ 9/29/2025 _ Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-2432 (RA) (HJR) ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY CO. ORDER (SHENZHEN), LTD Defendant.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Adrian A. Velez, a Manhattan resident, filed this pro se complaint against OnePlus Technology Co. (Shenzhen), Ltd., and alleges facts that may be construed as asserting a product liability claim.! ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also moves for appointment of pro bono counsel. ECF No. 3. By order dated September 15, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP’”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court directs Plaintiff to provide a current address at which Defendant may be served.

DISCUSSION A. The Court Directs Plaintiff to Provide a Service Address for Defendant Plaintiff does not provide an address at which Defendant may be served.

Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on assistance from the Court and the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS) to effect ! Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 21, 2025. The matter was assigned to Judge Abrams on September 16, 2025, and referred to the undersigned for general pretrial matters on September 26, 2025. service.2 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). While the court will assist a plaintiff proceeding IFP with effecting service on a defendant, “[i]t is the responsibility of the plaintiff . . . to provide a current address at which service may be effected on each defendant.” Van Arsdol v. Charles, No. 25-CV-5366, 2025 WL 1808881, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2025) (quoting Lewis v. Maldonado, No. 14-CV-0437, 2015 WL 2016174, at *1 (D. Conn. May 1, 2015)); Sebastian v. Doe, No. 25-CV-0911, 2025 WL 831588 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2025) (same); see Hunter v. Hill, No. 04-CV-0920, 2009 WL 483154, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009) (“[I]t is not the responsibility of the [Court] . . . to provide plaintiffs with the names and addresses of the defendants which they sue.”).

The Court therefore directs Plaintiff, within 30 days, to provide the Court with an address at which Defendant may be served. If Plaintiff is unable to comply within the prescribed time, he should file a motion seeking an extension of time.

B. The Court Denies Without Prejudice the Motion for Pro Bono Counsel The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and 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 effected service until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that any summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date any summonses issue.

Plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel.

See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60–62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of the action, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

C. The Court Refers Plaintiff to the City Bar Justice Center Plaintiff is advised that there is a Pro Se Law Clinic available to assist self- represented parties in civil cases. The Clinic may be able to provide Plaintiff with advice in connection with locating a service address for Defendant. The Pro Se Law Clinic is run by a private organization called the City Bar Justice Center; it is not part of, or run by, the Court (and, among other things, therefore cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any self-represented party through the Pro Se Intake Unit).

To make an appointment, Plaintiff must complete the City Bar Justice Center’s intake form. If Plaintiff has questions about the intake form or needs to highlight an urgent deadline already disclosed in the form, the clinic can be contacted by phone (212-382-4794) or email ([email protected]). In-person appointments in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse are available Monday through Thursday, 10am to 4pm. Appointments are also available remotely Monday through Friday, 10am to 4pm.

CONCLUSION The Court directs Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of this order, to provide the Court with a current address at which Defendant may be served. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed or fails to seek an extension of time to comply, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling. A flyer for the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project is attached to this order. The Court denies without prejudice the motion for pro bono counsel, and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion. ECF No. 3.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (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 the pro se Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2025 New York, New York NRY J. RICARDO United States Mikgistrate Judge i) LO) em WS) P| Led a J en] eas Taal ONIN □□□ Ramaatsmecielel a al>aam Dita a renmre)mNI-h)\'an aes BIND A) □□ ABOUT THE PROJECT The Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project provides limited assistance to self- represented litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) with cases involving civil legal matters in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

This project assists plaintiffs and defendants on a variety of federal legal issues, including, among others, civil rights, employment discrimination, and disability discrimination. The team also assists incarcerated individuals with civil (non- criminal) claims.

HOW WE HELP Fed Pro provides limited assistance through full-time attorneys, legal support team members, pro bono (volunteer) attorneys, law school/college interns, and a social work team. While we cannot provide full representation, Fed Pro can assist litigants by providing limited-scope services such as: 2. Counseling about potential Consulting on discovery KA federal claims prior to filing suit matters Interpreting and explaining P2 Assisting with the settlement federal law and procedure S62 ~—Ssprrocesss (including mediation) (FZ Reviewing drafted pleadings and correspondence with the Court HOW TO ACCESS OUR SERVICES axe) @e-1-3-9 6-3 J OXY 0) [-F-S-Y ono) af0) (-9K att Loler-1a-te rolamelelan i c-1ek11 —_ Bw PANAWAN ARAYA [UE MLot-Tel-1 a1 ake) 0) ae) (Loa Aa-TeK-1 □□ ed fo) otek C-424-] bSo0 3 =) atta NWZolUl-] a ale) mr-1 0) (a ko Woro) an) ©) (-18-0 □□□ Pie) an\Ze) □□□ □□□□ ee li Ce ain oLUL=xcsa atcur-leloleh am Wa-M ke) a (--\-1-Met-1 1 ald Cts er □□