Opinion
24-CV-2969 (RA)
08-23-2024
JOHN ANDREW FLORES, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
RONNIE ABRAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
The Court is in receipt of the attached request filed by Plaintiff via mail. Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) extend the deadline for service upon Defendant Montigny, (2) “order [the] service address for” Defendants Montigny and Doe, and (3) to identify Defendant Doe.
First, Plaintiff's request to extend the deadline for service upon Defendant Montigny is granted. Per the Court's order of May 1, 2024, the Clerk of Court was directed to issue a summons and to provide the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary to effect service on Defendant Montigny. See ECF No. 6, at 3. On May 9, 2024, the summons was issued. See ECF No. 7. On August 6, 2024, the Marshals Service reported that it was unable to execute service because Defendant Montigny was not on an “approved list,” “does not work at that building,” and is “listed as on leave and not at a facility.” See ECF No. 11.
“The fact that the Marshals Service was unable to locate [Defendant Montigny] at the address provided by [Plaintiff] . . . does not prevent the Court from finding that there was good cause for [Plaintiff's] failure to timely serve [Defendant].” Sidney v. Wilson, 228 F.R.D. 517, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Where “a pro se prisoner-litigant proceeding in forma pauperis” has “provide[d] the information necessary to identify the defendant,” as Plaintiff has here, courts have uniformly held that the Marshals' failure to effect service automatically constitutes good cause.” Ruddock v. Reno, 104 Fed.Appx. 204, 206-07 (2d Cir. 2004).
Second, courts have held that it is not a requirement of a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to provide a defendant's accurate address, as long as the defendant's identity is reasonably identifiable. Murray v. Pataki, 378 Fed.Appx. 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (“It is unreasonable to expect incarcerated and unrepresented prisoner-litigants to provide the current addresses of prison-guard defendants who no longer work at the prison.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sidney, 228 F.R.D. at 523 & n.11 (holding the same in a case where the plaintiff provided the address of the defendant-officer's former workplace, but the defendant had been suspended from employment). The Court thus directs the New York State Attorney General to provide the address at which Defendant Montigny can be served no later than September 6, 2024. See Murray, 378 Fed.Appx. at 52 (stating that a district court “could have ordered the other defendants ... to provide the Marshals with [a defendant's] last known address”); Green v. Schriro, No. 18-cv-01641, 2019 WL 1765220, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2019). Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiff to serve Defendant Montigny is hereby extended for 90 days from the date the Attorney General provides the address at which Defendant Montigny can be served.
Finally, on May 1, 2024, the Court ordered the New York State Attorney General to ascertain the identity of Defendant John Doe and to provide Plaintiff with his badge number and an address where he may be served within sixty days of its Order. See ECF No. 6, at 3. No later than September 6, 2024, the Attorney General's Office shall file a letter on the docket providing this information.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
Further, the Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order to the New York State Attorney General at: New York State Attorney General's Managing Attorney's Office, 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10005.
SO ORDERED.