Alvarez v. Paragon Systems Inc./Securitas Security
- James Oetken
- 1:26-cv-05164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Daniel Alvarez v. Paragon Systems, Judge Oetken ordered service of Alvarez’s Title VII and state and city discrimination lawsuit through the Marshals Service.
Daniel Alvarez, Paragon Systems Inc./Securitas Security, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service are affected. The order requires the Clerk and Marshals Service to carry out service and requires Alvarez to keep the court informed of any address change.
What happened
In Daniel Alvarez v. Paragon Systems Inc./Securitas Security, Daniel Alvarez, who is representing himself, claims that his employer discriminated against him because of his religion and retaliated after he requested a reasonable accommodation. He brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York State and New York City human-rights laws.
The court had already allowed Alvarez to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because of that status, the court said the U.S. Marshals Service would assist with serving the defendant. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the service paperwork, and give the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether Alvarez’s discrimination or retaliation claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. Paragon Systems Inc./Securitas Security · No. 1:26-cv-05164
- James Oetken
- July 20, 2026
Background
Daniel Alvarez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Paragon Systems Inc./Securitas Security under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleges that his employer discriminated against him because of his religion and later retaliated against him after he requested a reasonable accommodation.
The court had previously granted Alvarez permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The opinion states that the request was granted by an order dated July 2, 2026.
Service of the Lawsuit
Because Alvarez was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The court also explained that service generally must occur within 90 days after the complaint is filed, but Alvarez could not serve the papers before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued.
The court therefore extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that if the complaint is not served within that period, Alvarez should request an extension of time. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue the summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on Paragon Systems Inc./Securitas Security at the address listed in the order.
Other Requirement and Disposition
The court ordered Alvarez to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. The Clerk was also directed to mail Alvarez an information package.
The court directed service on the defendant. This order did not resolve the merits of Alvarez’s discrimination or retaliation allegations and did not state whether the defendant is liable.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.