Opinion
21-CV-2059 (VB)
04-26-2021
SHANNON POULSON, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; R&B CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE :
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in FCI Otisville, brings this pro se action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., alleging that Defendants violated his rights. By order dated April 23, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).
Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
DISCUSSION
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. 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)). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that summonses and the complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date summonses are issued. If the complaint is not served within that time, 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); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App'x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) ("As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals' failure to effect service automatically constitutes 'good cause' for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).").
To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Experian) and R&B Corporation of Virginia (R&B) 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 each of these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon the defendants.
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 directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.
The Clerk of Court is further instructed to complete the USM-285 form with the addresses for Experian and R&B, issue summonses, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2021
White Plains, New York
/s/_________
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI
United States District Judge
DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES
1. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
c/o CT Corporation System
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
2. R&B Corporation of Virginia
11821 Rock Landing Drive
Newport News, VA 23606