Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2020

Mitchell v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:20-cv-01555
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Mitchell v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Gardephe ordered U.S. Marshals service and extended the service deadline for Mitchell’s discrimination case.

Who this affects

Pro se plaintiff Dwain Mitchell and defendants New York City Department of Education and Daisy Fontanez; the order concerns service of the lawsuit, not the merits of the discrimination allegations.

What happened

In Mitchell v. New York City Department of Education, pro se plaintiff Dwain Mitchell alleges that his employer discriminated against him because of his race, sex, and age. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations are true.

Because Mitchell was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the necessary paperwork to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe also directed the Clerk to mail Mitchell a copy of the order and an information package. Mitchell must notify the court in writing if his address changes, or the action may be dismissed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mitchell v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:20-cv-01555
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Mar. 26, 2020

Background

Dwain Mitchell, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action against the New York City Department of Education and Daisy Fontanez. He alleges discrimination based on race, sex, and age. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon had previously granted Mitchell permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Service of Process

A plaintiff proceeding without paying filing fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The court explained that Mitchell could not have served the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued. It therefore extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. The court stated that, if the complaint is not served within that period, Mitchell should request an extension of time.

The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for both defendants, issue the summonses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order’s service-address section lists the City of New York and Daisy Fontanez.

Other Instructions and Ruling

Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed the Clerk to mail Mitchell a copy of the order and an information package. Mitchell must notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. This order addresses service procedures and does not decide the alleged 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.