Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 20, 2020

Tillman v. The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-01153
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Tillman v. The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration, Judge Vyskocil dismissed D.S.M.’s claims without prejudice and ordered U.S. Marshals service.

Who this affects

Tammara Tillman may proceed with her own claims, while claims asserted on behalf of D.S.M. were dismissed without prejudice. The listed defendants are to be served through the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Tillman v. The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration, Tammara Tillman, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her race and disability under federal, state, and city laws.

The court treated Tillman as the only plaintiff because she alone signed the complaint and could not represent D.S.M. The court dismissed without prejudice any claims brought on D.S.M.’s behalf, directed that D.S.M. be removed as a plaintiff, and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the remaining defendants.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued and instructed Tillman to notify the court of any address change.

The detailed version

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

Case
Tillman v. The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration · No. 1:20-cv-01153
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 20, 2020

Background

Tammara Tillman brought this action without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. She alleged that her employer discriminated against her based on race and disability. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Tillman listed D.S.M., her minor granddaughter, as an additional plaintiff. The complaint was signed only by Tillman. The court stated that a person representing herself without a lawyer cannot represent another person in the action. It therefore treated Tillman as the only plaintiff and dismissed without prejudice any claims asserted on behalf of D.S.M. The court also advised Tillman to follow the federal rule limiting identifying information in court filings, including using only a minor’s initials.

Service of the Defendants

Because Tillman was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summonses and complaint. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued, rather than measuring the period from the filing of the complaint. It stated that Tillman should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration, Robert Houser, Michael Greene, Maria Cingilio, Rad Jacuch, Klara Shoumaker, and Stephanie Grant.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil directed the Clerk to mail Tillman a copy of the order and an information package, complete the service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The order dismissed without prejudice all claims asserted on behalf of D.S.M. and directed the Clerk to terminate D.S.M. as a plaintiff. The order also required Tillman to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.