Muhammad v. Hobbs et al
ORDER directing the Plaintiff to, within 45 days, ascertain a valid service address for deft Cervin and to file a "Motion for Service" requesting that serve be attempted upon him at that address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 8/9/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
TAKBIR ALLAHU AKBAR MUHAMMAD,
ADC # 86280
RAY HOBBS, et al.
The summons issued for Defendant Charles Cervin has been returned to the court
unexecuted by the United States Marshal Service. (Docket entry #7, #12, #24) Mr.
Cervin is no longer an employee of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) and
cannot be served through the ADC Compliance Division. The ADC, however, provided
Mr. Cervin’s last-known address under seal, but the summons at that address has also
been returned unexecuted.
It is the responsibility of a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a
§ 1983 action to provide the Court and the U.S. Marshal Service with proper service
addresses for the defendants. Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). The
Court will allow Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to: (1) ascertain
a valid service address for Mr. Cervin; and (2) file a “Motion for Service” requesting that
service be attempted upon him at that address. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to
timely and properly comply with this Order may result in dismissal, without prejudice, of
the claims against Mr. Cervin. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that a Court may sua
sponte dismiss a defendant if he or she is not served within 120 days of the filing of the
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2011.
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?