Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

TEDDY G. THOMAS, III,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:25-cv-0014

vs. Judge Jeffrey P. Hopkins

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

C/O J. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

I.

Plaintiff originally initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 15, 2025,

while incarcerated in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”). (ECF No. 1.) The

Court screened the original Complaint and permitted certain claims against Defendants C/O J.

Lewis, C/O Murray, and Captain Gary Haywood to proceed. (ECF Nos. 7, 54.) On July 17,

2025, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35.) The Court screened that

pleading and permitted Plaintiff’s claims against CO J. Lewis, CO Jenkins, Cynthia Davis, Nurse

Corey Sammons, and Nurse Theresa Hill to proceed. (ECF No. 37.) Defendants Haywood and

Murray filed an Answer on August 14, 2025. (ECF No. 40.) Defendants Lewis, Hill, and Davis

filed an Answer on October 8, 2025. (ECF No. 46.) Thus, as the date of this Order Defendants

Sammons and Jenkins have not filed Answers.1

1 Summons was issued as to Defendant Sammons on July 28, 2025, and as to Defendant Jenkins on September 22,

2025. (ECF Nos. 39, 45.)

On October 27, 2025, in response to a motion filed by Plaintiff, certain Defendants

represented that service has not been perfected on Defendant Corey Sammons because that

individual no longer works at SOCF. (ECF No. 48.) On December 29, 2025, Defendants filed a

Status Report advising the Court as follows:

On or about December 17, 2025, the Summons for “C/o Jenkins” was received at

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. No additional identifiers were provided by

Plaintiff. Without additional clarifying information, SOCF is unable to determine

which of the correctional officers with the last name of “Jenkins” is “C/o Jenkins

(the one that works the metal detector at Control Center 3, Not the Library.)”

Therefore, the summons received by SOCF has been returned as undeliverable.

(ECF No. 50.)

Taking the matter of “C/o Jenkins” first, as Plaintiff’s filings reflect, Plaintiff has

identified this Defendant to the best of his current ability. Under this circumstance, the Court

finds that Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to undertake limited discovery to identify the

specific “C/o Jenkins.”

Thus, it is appropriate to permit service of the complaint on a high-ranking official who

could identify the specific “C/o Jenkin”s through discovery. Slocum v. Bear, No. 1:18-CV-423,

2019 WL 2234227, at *2–5 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No.

1:18CV423, 2019 WL 2233633 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2019). The SOCF Warden is in a position

to know or determine the identity of the specific “C/o Jenkins.” The Court shall order service of

the summons and complaint on the SOCF Warden for this limited purpose only. Once the

Warden is served and has filed a response to Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff shall be permitted to

serve discovery on the Warden to determine the first name of defendant Jenkins. Upon discovery

of the full name of this Defendant, Plaintiff will be required to amend his complaint to identify

him and the SOCF Warden will be dismissed.

As to Defendant Sammons, initially, the Court “has no obligation to ferret out additional

information” regarding a defendant. Vick v. Bernard, No. 2:15-CV-116-JRG-MCLC, 2018 WL

9811676, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2018) (citing Fitts v. Sicker, 232 F. App'x 436, 443 (6th Cir.

2007) (declining to impose a duty on district courts to actively seek out the address of a

defendant so that service can be effectuated)). Nevertheless, some courts have chosen to assist

pro se plaintiffs with such an undertaking. Id. (citing see Baldwin v. Croft, 2013 WL 172870, at

*1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 16, 2013) (ordering the warden to provide the United States Marshal Service

with the last known addresses of the unserved defendants); Allen v. Siddiqui, 2008 WL 2217363,

at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 27, 2008) (noting that the court's practice in pro se prisoner cases was to

order the agency that previously employed the defendant to provide his last known address under

seal)).

For several reasons, the Court will assist with obtaining Corey Sammons’ last known

address for purposes of service. See Reed-bey v. Pramstaller, No. 06-CV-10934-VAR-RSW,

2013 WL 1183301, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2013), aff'd, 607 F. App'x 445 (6th Cir. 2015)

(noting that the Court had sua sponte directed the Marshal to serve certain defendants following

the return of unexecuted waivers of service and ultimately sua sponte ordered personal service

by the Marshal). The Court has “broad remedial power to ensure proper service is accomplished

once an in forma pauperis plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to identify the defendants named

in the complaint.” Ely v. Smith, 2008 WL 2076651, at * 1 (E.D. Tenn. May 15, 2008) (citing

Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir.1996)); see also Baldwin v. Croft, No. 3:12 CV 1867,

2013 WL 172870, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 16, 2013) (discussing Court’s authority and ordering

United States Marshal to obtain from the institution the last known address of a defendant no

longer employed there). Additionally, courts have “routinely acknowledged” both “the security

concerns inherent in providing inmates with the personal addresses of prison employees for

service of complaints” and the difficulties inmates frequently face in obtaining such information.

Id. (citing Baldwin, 2013 WL 172870, at *1); see also VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934,

939 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“[P]rison guards typically do not want prisoners to have their home

addresses and it is often very difficult, if not impossible, for prisoners to learn the addresses of

such employees.”); Ely, 2008 WL 2076651, at *2 (noting “the reality that prisoners often get the

‘runaround’ when they attempt to obtain information through governmental channels and

needless attendant delays in litigating a case.”) (citation omitted). Finally, the Court finds that

the interest of efficiency is served by its assistance under the circumstances of this case.

Accordingly, within FOURTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, defense

counsel is DIRECTED to either provide the Court with Corey Sammons’ last known address or

notify the Court that they do not have and cannot access additional information regarding Corey

Sammons that may be of assistance. See, e.g., Hughbanks v. Fluke, No. 4:21-CV-04167-KES,

2023 WL 1930334, at *2 (D.S.D. Feb. 10, 2023) (ordering counsel who had appeared on behalf

of the State defendants to provide the last known addresses for unserved defendants). Any

information as to the address should be filed with the Court under seal. Any summons issued as

to this Defendant will be signed and sealed by the Clerk and forwarded to the United States

Marshal for service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

II.

The Court now turns to several pending motions filed by Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has

filed a “Motion by Ohio Civ.R.7.” (ECF No. 47.) Through this motion, Plaintiff, in part,

requests that the Court “order all of the Defendants to answer the Complaint.” (Id.) He also

requests that the Court order a “photo array or a in person line-up” so that he can perfect service

on Defendants Lewis and Jenkins. (Id.) Finally, he mentions his suspicions regarding the

alleged disappearance of his electronics. Plaintiff’s requests are DENIED.

First, the Court’s docket reflects that all properly served Defendants have filed Answers.

(ECF Nos. 40, 46.) Further, with respect to the request for a photo array or line-up, the Court

already has advised Plaintiff that, “[w]hile, under specific circumstances, courts have recognized

that a pro se plaintiff may require limited assistance to obtain information sufficient to identify a

defendant in order to effect proper service, such assistance has not included the type of relief

Plaintiff requests here.” (ECF No. 44.) Moreover, as the Court’s docket reflects and

Defendants’ response confirms, service was perfected on Defendant Lewis, and he filed an

Answer on October 8, 2025. (ECF Nos. 46, 48.) As to Defendant Jenkins, that matter has been

addressed above. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff may be attempting to raise a new claim

relating to his electronics, new claims are more properly brought before the Court by way of an

amended complaint. For this reason, the Court will not consider this information further at this

time.

Plaintiff also has filed a “Motion in Response to ‘Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s

Motion Received Oct. 31, 2025.” (ECF No. 49.) In this filing, Plaintiff requests that the Court

order Defendants to verify their defenses, disputes that Corey Sammons no longer is employed at

SOCF, again requests a photo array, and requests that the Court strike certain language in the

Defendants’ response. These requests are also DENIED. The Court has addressed the issues

presented by Plaintiff’s request for a photo array and the matter of Corey Sammons above.

Further, Plaintiff has set forth no basis for requiring the verification of defenses or striking

certain language in Defendants’ response.

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a document reflected on the Court’s docket as a “Motion for

Discovery and Motion to Compel Settlement.” (ECF No. 51.) To the extent that this filing is

appropriately considered to be a “motion,” it is DENIED. Any discovery requests or demand for

settlement negotiations are premature at this time.

III.

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 47, 49, and 51) are

DENIED.

The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint, supplemental amended

complaint, summons, and this Order upon the SOCF Warden. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed against the SOCF

Warden solely for the purpose of determining the identity of the C/o Jenkins named as a

Defendant in this lawsuit.

Within FOURTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, defense counsel is

DIRECTED to either provide the Court with Corey Sammons’ last known address or notify the

Court that they do not have and cannot access additional information regarding Corey Sammons

that may be of assistance. Any information as to the address should be filed with the Court under

seal.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to cause the docket to reflect that V. Brown, Sgt. A. Cooper,

and Lt. B. Barney have been terminated as Defendants in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______

DATED: February 9, 2026 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE