Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 9, 2024

Cruz v. New York City Transit

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:24-cv-00089
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Cruz v. New York City Transit, Judge Torres ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants after allowing Cruz to proceed without paying court fees.

Who this affects

Marisol Cruz and the named defendants, including New York City Transit Authority – MTA and the seven individual defendants listed in the order.

What happened

In Cruz v. New York City Transit, Marisol Cruz, who is representing herself, alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her religion and disability. She brought claims under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.

The court had already granted Cruz permission to proceed without paying court fees. Because of that permission, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the named defendants.

Judge Torres did not decide whether Cruz’s discrimination claims were legally valid. The order also told Cruz to request more time if service was not completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cruz v. New York City Transit · No. 1:24-cv-00089
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Jan. 9, 2024

Background

Marisol Cruz brought the action against New York City Transit and other defendants. The opinion states that Cruz was proceeding without a lawyer. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that her employer discriminated against her based on religion and disability.

The court had granted Cruz permission to proceed without paying court fees. This status is commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP.

Service of the Lawsuit

Because Cruz had IFP status, the court stated that she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was ordered to issue summonses, complete a service form for each defendant, and deliver the summonses and other necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

The defendants listed for service were New York City Transit Authority – MTA, Martense Avitus, Afiya Garcia-Austin, Tanya Forrester, Sandrea Flowers, Deborah Felice, Sade Kronagay, and R. Wallace. The order states that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed by then, Cruz should request an extension of time. The order also required Cruz to notify the court in writing if her address changes.

Disposition

This was an order directing service of the complaint; it did not decide the merits of Cruz’s discrimination claims. The Clerk of Court was also directed to mail Cruz an information package. Cruz could choose to receive case documents by email by completing the attached consent form.

Judge Analisa Torres certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.

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.