Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 9, 2020

Manning v. Fuentes

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:20-cv-09704
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Manning v. Fuentes, Judge Swain ordered service of a pro se employee’s discrimination complaint through the Marshals Service.

Who this affects

Jamel K. Manning, Miguel A. Fuentes, Jr., and BronxCare Health System; the order also directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take specified steps to serve the defendants.

What happened

Jamel K. Manning, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Miguel A. Fuentes, Jr. and BronxCare Health System. He alleges that his employer discriminated against him because of his race under Title VII, and the court also treated the complaint as raising claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.

The court had previously allowed Manning to proceed without paying filing fees. Because people proceeding that way rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service on Fuentes and BronxCare. The order did not decide whether Manning’s discrimination claims are valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Manning v. Fuentes · No. 1:20-cv-09704
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Dec. 9, 2020

Background

Jamel K. Manning filed this action without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on race. The court also construed the complaint as asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants are Miguel A. Fuentes, Jr. and BronxCare Health System.

The court had granted Manning permission to proceed without paying filing fees. In such cases, federal law requires the court to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint when service is needed.

Service ruling

The court explained that the usual deadline for serving a summons and complaint is 90 days after the complaint is filed. Because Manning could not serve the defendants until the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued. The court stated that Manning should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Manning an information package, issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also directed Manning to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition and scope

This was an order concerning service of process—the formal delivery of the lawsuit papers to the defendants. It directed service through the Marshals Service but did not decide the merits of Manning’s discrimination claims or otherwise state whether those claims would succeed.

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.