The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:22-cv-00150-MR
SHELBY REID LENTZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
BRANDESHAWN HARRIS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion.
On January 30, 2023, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety
(NCDPS) filed a document under seal indicating it was unable to procure a
waiver of service for Defendant Betty Brown for the reasons stated in that
document. [Doc. 16]. The sealed document provides the last known address
for Defendant Brown. [See id.].
Generally, a plaintiff is responsible for effectuating service on each
named Defendant within the time frame set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and
failure to do so renders the action subject to dismissal. However, if an
incarcerated plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis provides the Marshals
Service sufficient information to identify the defendant, the Marshals
Service’s failure to complete service will constitute good cause under Rule
4(m) if the defendant could have been located with reasonable effort. See
Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 1995); Greene v. Holloway,
No. 99-7380, 2000 WL 296314, at *1 (4th Cir. Mar. 22, 2000) (where the
district court dismissed a defendant in a Section 1983 action based on the
prisoner’s failure to provide an address for service on a defendant who no
longer worked at the sheriff’s office, remanding so the district court could
“evaluate whether the marshals could have served [Defendant] with
reasonable effort”).
Here, despite that a request for waiver of service was submitted to the
NCDPS, no waiver from Defendant Brown was obtained. As such, it does
not appear that this Defendant actually ever received service of process.
With the additional information supplied for service on Defendant Brown, the
U.S. Marshal is hereby ordered to use reasonable efforts to locate and obtain
service on this Defendant in accordance with Rule 4.
To that end, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of
Docket No. 16 to the U.S. Marshal for its eyes only for the sole purpose of
serving Defendant Brown.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of Court issue a
redacted Summons for Defendant Betty Brown and send a copy of this
Order, the redacted Summons, the Complaint [Doc. 1], and Docket No. 16
to the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshal shall use reasonable efforts
to locate and obtain service on Defendant Brown in accordance with Rule 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: February 8, 2023
Martifi Reidinger ey
Chief United States District Judge ely