Dodd v. My Sisters' Place, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ SNA os

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK pe

MARCUS ANDRE DODD, Peet fa ft

Plaintiff, Appr

-against-

MY SISTERS’ PLACE, INC.; KAREN CHEEKS-

LOMAX, Individually; THOMAS RICE,

Individually; ROBERT R. GHEEWALLA, 21-CV-10987 (VB)

Individually; SUZANNE SEIDEN, Individually;

BARBARA RAHO, Individually; EVAN J. ORDER OF SERVICE

COHEN, Individually; CHERYL GREENBURG,

Individually; PETER CUTAIA, Individually;

MARIA FAUSTINO, Individually; DANIA

JONES-BROWN, Individually; and CHRISTINA

DEBONIS, Individually,

Defendants.

VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as the New York State

Human Rights Law, alleging that his former employer, My Sisters’ Place (“MSP”), as well as

individual members of MSP’s Board of Directors (“Board”) and its employees, discriminated

against him because of his race and disability, and retaliated against him.

Plaintiff sues: (1) MSP, a not-for-profit corporation; (2) Karen Cheeks-Lomax, MSP’s

Chief Executive Officer; (3) Thomas Rice, Co-Chair and member of MSP’s Board; (4) Suzanne

Seiden, Co-Chair and member of MSP’s Board; (5) Barbara Raho, member of MSP’s Board;

(6) Evan J. Cohen, member of MSP’s Board; (7) Robert R. Gheewalla, Secretary and member of

MSP’s Board; (8) Cheryl Greenberg, MSP’s Chief Development Officer; (9) Peter Cutaia, MSP’s

“Controller” (understood to be Comptroller); (10) Maria Faustino, MSP’s Grants & Contracts

Manager; (11) Dania Jones-Brown, MSP’s Accounts Payable & Human Resources Manager; and

(12) Christina Debonis, MSP’s Billing Specialist. The Court construes the complaint as also

asserting claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

By order dated J anuary 19, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”), The Court directs service on the defendants, and grants Plaintiff’s

motion for permission for electronic case filing. For the reasons discussed in this order, the Court

denies Plaintiff’s application for the Court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to

Plaintiffs filing another such application at a later date.

DISCUSSION

A. Service on the defendants

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 the summons and 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 on the defendants until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that

summonses be issued for the defendants. The Court therefore extends the time to serve the

defendants with the complaint until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued for the

defendants. If the complaint is not served on the defendants 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) (summary order) (“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 of the complaint on the defendants 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 the defendants. The Clerk of Court is

further instructed to issue summonses for the defendants and deliver to the Marshals Service all

the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service of summonses and the

complaint on the defendants.

Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may

dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to do so.

B. Application for the Court to request pro bono counsel

The Court must deny Plaintiff’s application for the Court to request pro bono counsel.

The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the

merits of the case, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his 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 is “[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, the Court denies Plaintiffs

application for the Court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice Plaintiff's filing another

such application at a later date.

CONCLUSION

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with

an information package.

The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for permission for electronic case filing. (ECF 5.)

The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to: (1) issue summonses for the defendants,

(2) complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses of the defendants, and (3) deliver all

documents necessary to effect service of summonses and the complaint on the defendants to the

U.S. Marshals Service.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s application for the Court to request pro bono counsel without

prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing another such application at a later date. (ECF 4.)

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).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2022 ted

White Plains, New York

~_VINCENTL.BRICCETTI

United States District Judge

DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES

1. My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

3 Barker Avenue, 5th Floor

White Plains, New York 10601

2. Karen Cheeks-Lomax

Chief Executive Officer

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

112 Esplanade

Mount Vernon, New York 10553

3. Thomas Rice

Co-Chair and member of the Board of Directors

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

15 Thornewood Road

Armonk, New York 10504

4, Suzanne Seiden

Co-Chair and member of the Board of Directors

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

22 Fairway Drive

Mamaroneck, New York 10543

5. Barbara Raho

Member of the Board of Directors

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

63 Park Drive South

Rye, New York 10580

6. Evan J. Cohen

Member of the Board of Directors

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

3 Magnolia Drive

Purchase, New York 10577

7, Robert R. Gheewalla

Secretary and member of the Board of Directors

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

325 Weaver Street

Larchmont, New York 10538

8. Cheryl Greenburg

Chief Development Officer

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

10 Nosband Avenue, Apt. 5M

White Plains, New York 10605

9, Peter Cutaia

Comptroller

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

99 Christine Court

Stormville, New York 12582

10. Maria Faustino

Grants & Contracts Manager

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

81 Cramer Road

Poughkeepsie, New York 12603

11. Dania Jones-Brown

Accounts Payable & Human Resources Manager

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

3 Barker Avenue, 5th Floor

White Plains, New York 10601

12. Christina Debonis □

Billing Specialist

My Sisters’ Place, Inc.

7001 Chelsea Cove

Hopewell Junction, New York 12533