plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis are responsible for providing defendants’ addresses
How later courts described this case
- plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis are responsible for providing defendants’ addresses
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JIMMIE JR COLE PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:18-cv-04076
SERGEANT REYNOLDS;
NAUTICA BROWN; and JOHN DOES 1-3
OF THE TEXARKANA ARKANSAS
POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Jimmie JR Cole filed this case pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 8,
2018. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is the issue of attempted service on Defendant Nautica
Brown.
On May 9, 2018, this Court entered an Order directing service Defendant Nautica Brown
at the address set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 9). On May 29, 2018, the summons
was returned unexecuted with the envelope marked “NOT AT THIS ADDRESS” “RETURN TO
SENDER”. (ECF No. 12). On May 31, 2018 the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to
provide an address for service for Defendant Brown by June 21, 2018. (ECF No. 13). In response
to this Order, Plaintiff provided the Court with another address for service on Defendant Brown.
(ECF No. 14). The Court once again attempted service on Defendant Brown at the address
provided by Plaintiff and the summons was returned unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 15, 18).
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Court with an address for proper service on all
Defendants. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (plaintiffs proceeding in
forma pauperis are responsible for providing defendants’ addresses). Plaintiff has failed to provide
a proper address for service on Defendant Brown.
Accordingly, The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Nautica Brown as a Defendant in
this lawsuit.
In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Nautica Brown (ECF No. 19) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August 2018.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE