Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2021

Poulson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:21-cv-02059
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Poulson v. Experian, Judge Briccetti ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.

Who this affects

Shannon Poulson, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., R&B Corporation of Virginia, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

Shannon Poulson, who was incarcerated and represented himself, brought a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and R&B Corporation of Virginia. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

Because Poulson was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court said the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service would handle issuing the summonses and serving the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk to complete service forms, issue the summonses, and give the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order did not decide whether the defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The detailed version

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

Case
Poulson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-02059
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 26, 2021

Background

Shannon Poulson brought this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer credit reporting. The opinion states that Poulson was incarcerated in FCI Otisville and was proceeding without a lawyer. The defendants are Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and R&B Corporation of Virginia.

In an order dated April 23, 2021, the court allowed Poulson to proceed without paying court fees upfront. In this order, the court addressed how the defendants would receive formal notice of the lawsuit, rather than deciding the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations.

Service of Process

The court explained that a plaintiff proceeding without paying fees upfront may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. Although the usual deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 is 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court extended Poulson’s service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued because he could not serve the defendants before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered the summonses issued.

The court also stated that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time even when they are allowed to proceed without paying it upfront. If service is not completed within the extended period, the opinion directs Poulson to request more time. It also requires Poulson to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warns that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail Poulson a copy of the order and an information package. The order did not rule on the merits of Poulson’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order on April 26, 2021.

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.