Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 12, 2021

Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:19-cv-08423
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, Judge Woods ordered Marshals service for Daytona Apparel Group and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

The pro se plaintiff, Daytona Apparel Group, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service are directly affected. The order also concerns the plaintiff’s ability to appeal without paying fees.

What happened

In Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, the pro se plaintiff alleges that his employer discriminated against him based on race and sex under federal, state, and city laws. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and to amend his complaint to add Daytona Apparel Group.

Because the plaintiff was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court said the U.S. Marshals Service must serve Daytona Apparel Group. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the service forms and paperwork.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also warned that the plaintiff must report any address change and denied fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the discrimination claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08423
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Jan. 12, 2021

Background

The plaintiff brought this case without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. He alleges that his employer discriminated against him because of his race and sex. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and later allowed him to amend the complaint to add Daytona Apparel Group as a defendant. The plaintiff filed that amended complaint on January 4, 2021. The opinion states that all defendants other than Daytona Apparel Group had been served and had appeared.

Service of Process

The court explained that a plaintiff allowed to proceed without paying filing fees may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. Although the usual rule requires service within 90 days after filing, the court extended the time for service on Daytona Apparel Group until 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that, if service is not completed within that period, the plaintiff should request an extension of time.

The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete the U.S. Marshals Service process forms using Daytona Apparel Group’s listed address, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The plaintiff was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change; the court stated that it could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to complete the service forms for Daytona Apparel Group and provide the required documents to the Marshals Service. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not rule on the merits of the discrimination allegations.

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.