Ochoa v. New York City Department of Education
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-09014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ochoa v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Carter ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Ochoa’s complaint on the defendants.
Isabel Ochoa, the New York City Department of Education, and Angel Ortega are directly affected. The clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service were directed to take steps to serve the defendants.
What happened
In Ochoa v. New York City Department of Education, Isabel Ochoa, who is representing herself, brought claims against the New York City Department of Education and Angel Ortega under several federal, New York State, and New York City laws. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Because Ochoa could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and issued summonses, the court extended her service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued. The clerk was ordered to prepare the service forms and summonses and send the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide whether Ochoa’s claims were legally valid. He also ordered Ochoa to notify the court if her address changes and denied permission to appeal without paying fees because any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ochoa v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:20-cv-09014
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
Isabel Ochoa, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted claims against the New York City Department of Education and Angel Ortega, identified as the principal of M.S. 391. The opinion says her claims arise under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.
In an earlier order, the court allowed Ochoa to proceed without prepaying filing fees. That status permits a plaintiff to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Service of Process
The court explained that the usual 90-day deadline for serving a summons and complaint could not fairly begin to run against Ochoa before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued. The court therefore extended the time to serve the Department of Education and Ortega until 90 days after summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, the opinion says Ochoa should ask for more time.
The clerk was ordered to issue summonses for both defendants, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service process forms with their service addresses, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The court also directed the clerk to mail Ochoa a copy of the order and an information package.
Other Directions and Disposition
Ochoa must notify the court in writing if her address changes. The court stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
This was an order about serving the defendants and related filing-fee issues. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not rule on the merits of Ochoa’s discrimination and other claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.