Ball v. Hope East of Fifth HDFC Inc.

Background

Raymond Ball appears without a lawyer and seeks damages and injunctive relief. He invokes federal-question jurisdiction and sues Hope East of Fifth HDFC Inc., which the opinion describes as his landlord or sublessor. The court construes Ball’s amended complaint as asserting disability-based housing-discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act and possibly the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as state-law claims.

The court had previously granted Ball permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In this order, the court addresses service of the amended complaint, not the merits of Ball’s claims.

Service of Process

Because Ball was authorized to proceed without prepaying fees, federal law allows him to rely on assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons for Hope East, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to serve the summons and amended complaint.

The order states that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summons is issued, Ball should ask for more time to serve Hope East. It also requires Ball to notify the court in writing if his address changes and states that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk of Court to mail Ball an information package and to arrange service of the summons and amended complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service. The order does not resolve the alleged housing-discrimination or state-law claims.