Persaud v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 1:25-cv-04600

Steven Persaud, representing himself, brought a lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliation against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and several of its subdivisions under Title VII and New York State/City Human Rights Laws.
Persaud seeks damages, backpay, and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning he does not need to pay court fees.
The court found that only the MTA should remain as a defendant since the other named entities (NYCT, "MTA Headquarters (HQ)," MaBSTOA) are all subdivisions of the MTA, rendering their inclusion duplicative.
The court provided instructions for service of process to be carried out by the U.S. Marshals Service due to Persaud's IFP status.
Persaud was advised to update the court with any address changes and informed that failure to do so may result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether all MTA subdivisions should be defendants	All involved in discrimination	Not addressed on the merits	Only MTA should remain as defendant
Whether IFP status allows court-initiated service	Cannot pay for service	Not contested	Court will order USMS to serve
Whether summons must be served within strict 90 days	Needs more time due to IFP status	Not contested	Extension granted for service
Whether an appeal from this order may be taken IFP	Should be permitted	Not addressed	Appeal IFP status denied

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (explains that IFP status for appeals is only granted if the appeal is taken in good faith)
Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff remains responsible for service, even when proceeding IFP)
Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (court and USMS must assist with service in IFP cases)
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 118 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (courts may drop parties to streamline litigation under Rule 21)