Fowler et al v. Coleman et al
ORDER directing that service is appropriate for the Defendants Ronnie Coleman and Mike Allen. The Clerk of the Court shall prepare summons for the Defendants and the United States Marshal is hereby directed to serve a copy of 31 Amended and summons on Defendants Coleman and Allen without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 02/20/2013. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RONNIE COLEMAN, et al.
By Order dated January 8, 2012 (Doc. No. 19), this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, finding
Plaintiff’s Complaint too vague and conclusory to enable the Court to determine whether it is
frivolous, fails to state a claim, or states a legitimate claim, the Court directed him to submit an
Amended Complaint within thirty days. The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that an Amended
Complaint would render the Original Complaint without legal effect, and would take the place of
his Original Complaint. Plaintiff has now submitted an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 31). Having
reviewed the Amended Complaint, it now appears to the Court that service is appropriate for
Defendants Ronnie Coleman and Mike Allen. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that service is appropriate for the Defendants Ronnie
Coleman and Mike Allen. The Clerk of the Court shall prepare summons for the Defendants and
the United States Marshal is hereby directed to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No.
31) and summons on Defendants Coleman and Allen without prepayment of fees and costs or
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall change the style of this case to Wells v.
Coleman, et al.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2013.
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?