Tubbs v. Corizon Inc et al
ORDER directing Plaintiff to identify the Doe defendant and file a Motion for Service that includes the full name and proper mailing address within fourteen days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 7/24/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WILLIAM R. TUBBS
ADC # 120585
CORIZON, INC. et. al.
Per his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds a defendant whom he refers to as “John/Jane
Doe” (Doc. No. 52 at 4). Plaintiff also lists the defendant’s job title as “classifications
officer/administrator” (Id.). Plaintiff has not, however, provided service information for this
defendant. The Court cannot order service on this individual until his or her identity and mailing
address are determined. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). In light of the
filing date of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint - May 7, 2014 - the Court finds that Plaintiff has been
afforded ample time for discovery as to this individual.
Plaintiff shall identify the “Doe” defendant and file a Motion for Service that includes the
full name and proper mailing address for him or her within fourteen (14) days.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2014.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) Time Limit for Service: “If a defendant is not served within 120 days
after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time
for service for an appropriate period.”
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?