Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-10422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems, Judge Schofield ordered service on the defendants and denied without prejudice Maxius’s request for pro bono counsel.
Abbelen Maxius and the named defendants—Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc., Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Christopher D. Berner, JD, and Judith S. Block—are affected. The order requires service of the lawsuit and denies Maxius’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
What happened
In Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc., Abbelen Maxius, representing herself, alleges that her employer discriminated against her because of her race and religion under Title VII. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare the required forms so the U.S. Marshals Service can serve the defendants. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and directed Maxius to notify the court if her address changes.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Maxius’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The order did not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred.
The detailed version
- Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10422
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
Abbelen Maxius brings a pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that her employer discriminated against her based on race and religion. She names Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc., Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Christopher D. Berner, JD, and Judith S. Block as defendants.
The court had granted Maxius permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning she could proceed without paying the filing fee. This order addressed service of the lawsuit and her request for pro bono counsel; it did not decide the merits of her discrimination allegations.
Service of the Lawsuit
Because Maxius was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court said she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, the order states that Maxius should request an extension of time. The court also directed Maxius to notify it in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.
Request for Pro Bono Counsel
The court explained that requests for appointed volunteer counsel generally consider the apparent merits of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to find a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the proceedings were at an early stage and the court could not yet assess the merits, it denied Maxius’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice. The order does not state that counsel can never be requested again.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and arrange for service through the U.S. Marshals Service. The court denied Maxius’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close that motion. The order did not resolve the Title VII claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.