Pim Shih v. Artists & Fleas Chelsea Market and Jamestown LP

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : PIM SHIH, : : Plaintiff, : : 25 Civ. 7671 (JPC) (SDA) -v- : : ORDER ARTISTS & FLEAS CHELSEA MARKET and : JAMESTOWN LP, : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Pim Shih, who appears pro se, asserts claims of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York State Human Rights Law, as well as claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law, seeking unspecified damages, specified injunctive relief, and unspecified declaratory relief. Plaintiff sues: (1) “Artists & Fleas Chelsea Market,” which appears to be the Artists & Fleas Market located within the Chelsea Market, in New York, New York; and (2) Jamestown LP, which Plaintiff describes as “the parent and/or managing agent that owns and controls Chelsea Market.” Dkt. 1 at 1.

By Order dated September 23, 2025, Dkt. 5, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court directs service upon Defendants.

I. Discussion Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is entitled to assistance from the Court and the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service.

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) (providing that the court must order the USMS to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP).

To allow Plaintiff to effect service upon Defendants through the USMS, the Court respectfully instructs the Clerk of Court to fill out a USMS Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each Defendant. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for each Defendant and deliver to the USMS all the paperwork necessary for the USMS to effect service of a summons and the Complaint upon each Defendant.

If the Complaint is not served upon each Defendant within ninety days after the date that the summonses for Defendants are 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 Plaintiff’s mailing address or email address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

II. Conclusion The Court also respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to mail an information package to Plaintiff.

The Court also respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to: (1) issue summonses for Defendants; (2) complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses for Defendants; and (3)

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 that the Complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have effected service until the Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered that summonses issue. The Court therefore extends the time to serve Defendants until ninety days after the date that summonses for Defendants issue. deliver all documents necessary to effect service of a summons and the Complaint upon each Defendant to the USMS.

SO ORDERED. Wha Dated: November 10, 2025 é On e 72 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge