Hays v. Cantu, 3:18-cv-00341-HZ. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20181004b57
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights case on February 23, 2018. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order to Issue Process which directed service by the U.S. Marshal. Specifically, the Court called for the Clerk to issue process as to Defendant Cantu, and provided that "Service of the summons and Complaint shall be made by the United States Marshal's Service." Order (#6), p. 2. The Court also directed the Marshal's service to serve copies
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights case on February 23, 2018. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order to Issue Process which directed service by the U.S. Marshal. Specifically, the Court called for the Clerk to issue process as to Defendant Cantu, and provided that "Service of the summons and Complaint shall be made by the United States Marshal's Service." Order (#6), p. 2. The Court also directed the Marshal's service to serve copies ..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights case on February 23, 2018. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order to Issue Process which directed service by the U.S. Marshal. Specifically, the Court called for the Clerk to issue process as to Defendant Cantu, and provided that "Service of the summons and Complaint shall be made by the United States Marshal's Service." Order (#6), p. 2. The Court also directed the Marshal's service to serve copies of the summons and Complaint on the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon and the U.S. Attorney General.
In May 2018, process returns were filed with respect service upon the U.S. Attorney General and the local U.S. Attorney, but it appears that the Marshal's Service did not attempt to serve Defendant Cantu. As a result, Defendant Cantu now moves to dismiss the action for lack of service.
It is unclear why the U.S. Marshal's Service did not attempt to serve Defendant Cantu. However, the Court once again requires and directs that the U.S. Marshal's Service personally serve the summons and Complaint on Defendant Cantu. Where the defect in service is not attributable to any fault of the Plaintiff, the Motion to Dismiss for lack of service is denied.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#13) is denied. The U.S. Marshal's Service is DIRECTED to personally serve the summons and Complaint on Defendant Cantu.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
