Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 9, 2024

Obah v. Department of Probation

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:24-cv-04776
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil RightsEmploymentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Obah v. Department of Probation, Judge Subramanian ordered the Marshals Service to serve Obah’s discrimination complaint.

Who this affects

Patrick Obah and the New York City Department of Probation; the order also directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take service-related steps.

What happened

Patrick Obah, who is representing himself, sued the Department of Probation under federal, New York State, and New York City laws. He alleges discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

Because the court allowed Obah to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, it ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court said service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, unless Obah asks for more time.

On July 9, 2024, Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order directing these service steps. The order did not decide whether Obah’s discrimination claims are valid, and it also requires Obah to notify the court if his address changes.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Obah v. Department of Probation · No. 1:24-cv-04776
Judge
Subramanian
Date
July 9, 2024

Background

Patrick Obah, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and, as the court construed the complaint, the New York City Human Rights Law. Obah alleges that the Department of Probation discriminated against him because of his race, color, and national origin.

The court had previously granted Obah permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion refers to the defendant in the caption as the Department of Probation and, in the service instructions, as the New York City Department of Probation.

Order

Because Obah was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with service of the complaint. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the defendant.

The court extended the service deadline so that the 90-day period begins when the summons is issued, rather than when the complaint was filed. If service is not completed within those 90 days, Obah should request an extension of time. The court also stated that Obah must notify it in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition and significance

The court entered an order of service and directed the Clerk to mail Obah an information package, issue the summons, and provide the service materials to the Marshals Service. The order addressed only the mechanics of serving the defendant; it did not rule on the merits of Obah’s discrimination claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.