Smith v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-11136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Myra S. Smith v. City of New York, Judge Schofield ordered service of Smith’s pro se complaint by U.S. Marshals.
Myra S. Smith, the City of New York, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Myra S. Smith v. City of New York concerns Smith’s claims that her employer retaliated against her after she settled an earlier employment-discrimination case. She sued under federal, New York State, and New York City employment-discrimination laws.
The court had already allowed Smith to proceed under the court’s process for people without funds to pay litigation costs. It directed the Clerk to issue a summons and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City.
Judge Schofield ordered the Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summons is issued. The order also said Smith must request more time if service is not completed within that period and must notify the court if her address changes.
The detailed version
- Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-11136
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
Myra S. Smith brought this pro se action against the City of New York under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. She alleges that her employer retaliated against her after she settled a prior employment-discrimination case against it.
The court had previously granted Smith permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning under the court’s process for litigants who cannot pay the ordinary costs of litigation. Because of that status, Smith could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant.
Order
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summons is issued. The Clerk of Court was directed to issue the summons, complete the required service form for the City, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The order stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summons is issued, Smith must request an extension of time. It also directed Smith to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.
Effect of the Order
This was an order about service of process, not a decision on whether Smith’s retaliation and discrimination claims are legally valid. The court did not state that it was dismissing or deciding those claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.