Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2021

Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:20-cv-10503
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Judge Nathan ordered Marshals service and extended the service deadline, while denying appeal-related fee relief.

Who this affects

Mark F. Coleman, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, June Bridgemohan, Athea Long, and La’Draya Macon. The order primarily established how and when the defendants would be served and denied Coleman fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

Mark F. Coleman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and three employees under federal, New York State, and New York City anti-discrimination laws.

Because the court had allowed Coleman to proceed without paying filing fees, it directed the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare paperwork for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued.

Judge Alison J. Nathan also directed Coleman to keep the court informed of address changes and ruled that he could not proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene · No. 1:20-cv-10503
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Jan. 14, 2021

Background

Mark F. Coleman, who appeared without a lawyer, asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. He sued the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), June Bridgemohan, Athea Long, and La’Draya Macon. In an order dated January 11, 2021, the court had allowed Coleman to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service of Process

Because Coleman was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court explained that Coleman could not have served the summonses and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued.

The court extended the deadline for serving DOHMH, Bridgemohan, Long, and Macon until 90 days after summonses were issued for those defendants. It stated that Coleman should request an extension if service was not completed within that period. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms with the defendants’ service addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

Other Directions and Disposition

The court directed the Clerk to mail Coleman a copy of the order and an information package. It also required Coleman to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Judge Alison J. Nathan certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Coleman permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Coleman’s discrimination claims.

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.