Shine v. The New York City Department of Correction
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-08162
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shine v. New York City Department of Correction, Judge Oetken ordered Marshals service and denied permission to appeal without fees.
Towanda Shine and the New York City Department of Correction; the order arranged service of the lawsuit and denied Shine permission to appeal this order without paying fees.
What happened
In Shine v. The New York City Department of Correction, Towanda Shine, representing herself, brought a lawsuit under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, alleging that her employer discriminated against her.
The court had already allowed Shine to proceed without paying filing fees. Because she was not required to serve the defendant herself, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued and directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and serve the documents.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the Clerk to issue the summons and complete the service forms. The court also denied Shine permission to appeal without paying fees for this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Shine v. The New York City Department of Correction · No. 1:19-cv-08162
- James Oetken
- Feb. 7, 2020
Background
Towanda Shine brought this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that her employer discriminated against her. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying filing fees, known as in forma pauperis status.
Service of the lawsuit
Because Shine was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court explained that she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the New York City Department of Correction. The usual rule requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court extended that period to 90 days after the summons was issued because Shine could not serve the summons and complaint until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered issuance of the summons.
The court stated that, if the complaint was not served within that period, Shine should request an extension of time. It also directed the Clerk of Court to complete the U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue the summons, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. Shine was required to notify the court in writing if her address changed, and the court stated that it could dismiss the action if she failed to do so.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the Clerk of Court to mail Shine a copy of the order and an information package, issue the summons, complete the service forms with the Department of Correction's address, and provide the documents needed for service. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred or whether Shine's Title VII claim is legally valid.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.