Marks-Ellis v. NYU Langone Health Systems
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-09618
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Marks-Ellis v. NYU Langone Health, Judge Failla ordered U.S. Marshals to serve the defendant in this pro se case.
Ari Marks-Ellis, NYU Langone Health, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Ari Marks-Ellis sued NYU Langone Health under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that he was denied kosher food because of his religion. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Because Marks-Ellis was proceeding without paying those fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve NYU Langone Health.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and said Marks-Ellis should request more time if service is not completed by then. The order did not decide whether his allegation was legally valid.
The detailed version
- Marks-Ellis v. NYU Langone Health Systems · No. 1:23-cv-09618
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
Ari Marks-Ellis, appearing without a lawyer, brought an action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. He alleges that NYU Langone Health denied him kosher food because of his religion. In an earlier order dated March 6, 2024, the court allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of process
Because Marks-Ellis was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for NYU Langone Health, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with the defendant’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The court explained that the usual rule generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Because Marks-Ellis could not serve the complaint until the court reviewed it and ordered the summons issued, the court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, the opinion states that Marks-Ellis should request an extension of time. The court also directed Marks-Ellis to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
The court entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue the summons and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service. It also directed the Clerk to mail an information package to Marks-Ellis and provided an option for receiving court documents by email. This order addressed service and case administration; it did not resolve the merits of Marks-Ellis’s religious-discrimination allegation.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.