KENDRICK v. PULASKI COUNTY JAIL, 4:15CV00674-BSM-JJV. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20151222930
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOE J. VOLPE , Magistrate Judge . The docket currently shows Summons for Defendant Houfman as executed on November 30, 2015, and unexecuted on December 18, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.) The Marshal has confirmed that service was not possible at the address listed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4). Now, if Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Houfman are to proceed, he must provide a viable address for her within thirty (30) days of this Order's entry. See Lee v. Armontrout,
Summary: ORDER JOE J. VOLPE , Magistrate Judge . The docket currently shows Summons for Defendant Houfman as executed on November 30, 2015, and unexecuted on December 18, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.) The Marshal has confirmed that service was not possible at the address listed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4). Now, if Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Houfman are to proceed, he must provide a viable address for her within thirty (30) days of this Order's entry. See Lee v. Armontrout, ..
More
ORDER
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
The docket currently shows Summons for Defendant Houfman as executed on November 30, 2015, and unexecuted on December 18, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.) The Marshal has confirmed that service was not possible at the address listed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4). Now, if Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Houfman are to proceed, he must provide a viable address for her within thirty (30) days of this Order's entry. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (holding that it is a pro se plaintiff's responsibility to provide proper addresses for defendants).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff should provide a viable address at which service for Defendant Houfman may be attempted within thirty (30) days of this Order's entry. If he fails to do so, the Court will recommend Defendant Houfman's dismissal without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
