Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sundgren (ID 84212) v. Green, 15-3275-DDC. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Kansas Number: infdco20180102864 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER K. GARY SEBELIUS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2015, naming multiple defendants including Defendant Green. The court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed that the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) attempt to serve Mr. Green at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility, where Mr. Green had previously been employed. The waiver of summons was returned to the court, and writing on the return envelope states that M
More

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2015, naming multiple defendants including Defendant Green. The court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed that the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) attempt to serve Mr. Green at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility, where Mr. Green had previously been employed. The waiver of summons was returned to the court, and writing on the return envelope states that Mr. Green was "not @ this address—retired 2/27/15."1 The court then ordered the Kansas Department of Corrections to provide Mr. Green's last known address to the court in camera.2 The USMS then mailed a summons and copy of the complaint to Mr. Green at the address provided by the KDOC. On December 12, 2017, the summons was returned unexecuted.3 The return envelope indicates that it had been returned to sender and that the U.S. Postal Service had been unable to forward it. The court has now made two attempts at serving Mr. Green independent of any input from plaintiff. At this juncture, however, the court lacks any additional information suggesting where Mr. Green may be served. Although plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and can rely on the USMS to serve defendant, plaintiff still bears the responsibility of providing adequate information to enable the USMS to effect service.4 Accordingly, by January 31, 2018, plaintiff is ordered to file a notice containing an address where Mr. Green may be served. He is cautioned that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his claims against Mr. Green.

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. See Return Envelope at 1, ECF No. 11.
2. Order to Show Cause at 2, ECF No. 38.
3. See Process Receipt and Return at 1, ECF No. 53 (Sealed)
4. See, e.g., Pemberton v. Patton, 673 Fed. App'x 860, 862 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016) (affirming the district court's dismissal of claims against defendants when an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis had failed to provide addresses where defendants could be served).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer