Obah v. Humanitarian Emergency Response & Relief Center
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-03170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Patrick C. Obah v. Humanitarian Emergency Response & Relief Center, Judge Tarnofsky directed renewed service of the lawsuit on the defendant.
Patrick C. Obah and Humanitarian Emergency Response & Relief Center. The order facilitates service of the complaint on the defendant and sets December 2, 2025, as the stated service deadline.
What happened
Patrick C. Obah, representing himself, brought employment-discrimination and retaliation claims against Humanitarian Emergency Response & Relief Center under federal, New York State, and New York City laws. He was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, and the United States Marshals Service was ordered to serve the defendant, but service at the address in the complaint failed.
After Obah provided another address, the court directed the Clerk to issue a new summons, complete the required service form, and give the paperwork to the Marshals Service for service at that address. The service deadline was extended to December 2, 2025, and the court stated that Obah should request more time if service is not completed by then.
Judge Tarnofsky also stated that Obah must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the case may be dismissed if he does not. The order addressed service procedures only and did not decide the employment or retaliation claims.
The detailed version
- Obah v. Humanitarian Emergency Response & Relief Center · No. 1:25-cv-03170
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Patrick C. Obah filed this action without a lawyer, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation against Humanitarian Emergency Response & Relief Center under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Judge Ronnie Abrams had allowed Obah to proceed without prepaying filing fees and had ordered the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The Marshals Service could not complete service at the address listed in the complaint. Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky then directed Obah to provide a new service address and extended the time for service to December 2, 2025. Obah responded that the defendant was located at 700 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10036.
Court’s action
The court explained that a person allowed to proceed without prepaying fees may rely on assistance from the court and the Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for the defendant using the address provided in Obah’s letter, complete a USM-285 process-receipt form, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The court stated that if service is not completed by December 2, 2025, Obah should request an extension of time. It also required Obah to notify the court in writing of any address change and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Result and significance
This was a procedural order concerning service of process. It did not rule on whether Obah’s discrimination or retaliation claims were legally valid or whether either party was right on those claims. The order directed the Clerk and the Marshals Service to take steps to serve the defendant.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.