Mamyrova v. Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs, Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:21-cv-07170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mamyrova v. Neighborhood Association, Judge Cott ordered steps to serve the organization and identify two individual defendants.
The order affects self-represented plaintiff Nazik-Ayla Mamyrova, NAICA, Tamika Brown, and Isha Smith by arranging service on NAICA and requiring information about Brown’s and Smith’s service addresses.
What happened
Mamyrova v. Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs, Inc. involves Nazik-Ayla Mamyrova’s claims that defendants discriminated against her at a Bronx homeless shelter because of her race, religion, and national origin.
Because earlier attempts to serve the defendants failed, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs at another address. The court also directed the organization’s counsel to find service addresses for Tamika Brown and Isha Smith.
Judge James L. Cott ordered these service-related steps on April 11, 2022. The order did not decide whether Mamyrova’s discrimination claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Mamyrova v. Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07170
- James Cott
- Apr. 11, 2022
Background
Nazik-Ayla Mamyrova, who was representing herself, brought claims under the Revenue Sharing Act, 31 U.S.C. § 6711, and Chapter 21 of Title 42 of the United States Code. She alleged that the defendants subjected her to discrimination at a Bronx homeless shelter because of her race, religion, and national origin. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The defendants named in the caption were Neighborhood Association for Intercultural Affairs, Inc. (NAICA), Tamika Brown, Isha Smith, and unnamed defendants. The opinion states that Brown was a caseworker for NAICA and Smith was NAICA’s Director of Social Services.
Service of NAICA
The court had issued summonses for NAICA, Brown, and Smith, but the U.S. Marshals Service could not serve them. Because Mamyrova provided a second address for NAICA, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a new summons and the required U.S. Marshals Service process form, and to give the necessary papers to the Marshals Service so it could attempt service on NAICA at the second address.
Identifying Brown and Smith
The court explained that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the court’s help identifying a defendant when necessary. Because Brown and Smith apparently no longer worked or lived at the address Mamyrova had provided and could not be served, the court directed NAICA’s counsel to determine their identities and service addresses. NAICA’s counsel was ordered to provide that information to Mamyrova and the court within 60 days of the order. After receiving the information, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to prepare the service documents for Brown and Smith and send them to the Marshals Service.
Disposition
Judge James L. Cott directed the Clerk to issue a summons for NAICA, complete the required process form using the address listed in the conclusion, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The Clerk was also directed to mail NAICA a copy of the order and complaint, mail Mamyrova a copy of the order and an information package, and take the further service-related steps described in the order. The opinion addressed service and identification of defendants; it did not rule on the merits of Mamyrova’s discrimination claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.