STRICKLIN v. KITTRELL, 5:14CV00092-DPM-BD. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140701659
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge. A summons issued for Defendant Ravi Mehta was returned to the court unexecuted by Corizon, Inc. A second summons sent to Dr. Mehta's last-known address, as supplied by Corizon, was also returned unexecuted. (Docket entries #13, #27) It is the responsibility of the plaintiff in a 1983 action to provide the court and the U.S. Marshal Service with proper service addresses for all defendants, even if the plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in fo
Summary: ORDER BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge. A summons issued for Defendant Ravi Mehta was returned to the court unexecuted by Corizon, Inc. A second summons sent to Dr. Mehta's last-known address, as supplied by Corizon, was also returned unexecuted. (Docket entries #13, #27) It is the responsibility of the plaintiff in a 1983 action to provide the court and the U.S. Marshal Service with proper service addresses for all defendants, even if the plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in for..
More
ORDER
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
A summons issued for Defendant Ravi Mehta was returned to the court unexecuted by Corizon, Inc. A second summons sent to Dr. Mehta's last-known address, as supplied by Corizon, was also returned unexecuted. (Docket entries #13, #27)
It is the responsibility of the plaintiff in a § 1983 action to provide the court and the U.S. Marshal Service with proper service addresses for all defendants, even if the plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). The Court will allow Mr. Stricklin sixty (60) days from the date of this Order to find a valid service address for Dr. Mehta, and to file a "Motion for Service" so that service can be attempted upon Dr. Mehta at a valid address.
Mr. Stricklin is warned that if he fails to comply with this Order, his claims against Dr. Mehta may be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that a court can dismiss a defendant if he or she is not served within 120 days of the filing of the complaint).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
