Conyac v. Noonan et al
ORDER directing Mr. Conyac to submit additional information on or before Monday, July 1, 2013, to enable service of process on Defendants by the U.S. Marshal. If Mr. Conyac does not submit such additional information, the court will issue a Recommen dation to District Judge Philip A. Brimmer that this civil action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process, failure to identify anonymous parties, and failure to prosecute. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 06/03/2013. (cbslc1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02730-PAB-CBS
EDWARD PETER CONYAC,
DR. NOONAN, D.R.D.C., General Practitioner,
DEANNE ROMERO, D.R.D.C., Physician Assistant,
JESSICA ZAINES, D.R.D.C., Nurse Practitioner,
JANE DOE # 1, D.R.D.C., Nurse,
JANE DOE # 2, D.R.D.C., Nurse, and
JANE DOE # 3, D.R.D.C., Nurse,
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated March 22, 2012, this civil action was
referred to the Magistrate Judge to, inter alia, “hear and determine pretrial matters . . . .” (See
Doc. # 16). Proceeding pro se, Mr. Conyac alleges one claim against all of the Defendants for
“Deliberate Indifference” to his serious medical needs for failure to properly diagnose his
medical condition. (See “Amended Prisoner Complaint” (“AC”) (Doc. # 11) at 3-5 of 8). To
date, Defendants Noonan, Romero, and Zaines cannot be served at any of the addresses that
have been provided to the court and have not filed a waiver of service or appeared in the case.
While an incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the
U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint, the U.S. Marshal and the Clerk of the
Court have performed their duties to serve Defendants Noonan, Romero, and Zaines. The
court need not require the U.S. Marshal to search for or make any further attempts to serve
Defendant Hudson was dismissed with prejudice from this action by a Joint
Stipulated Motion of the parties. (See Docs. # 30, # 31).
these Defendants. Sufficient time has been afforded and sufficient efforts have been made to
serve these Defendants such that they may properly be dismissed without prejudice from this
civil action for failure to effect service within the time limit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and pursuant
to D. C. COLO. LR 41.1 for failure to prosecute.
Further, because anonymous parties are not permitted by the Federal Rules, the time
period for serving the summons and complaint has expired, and Mr. Conyac has not identified
the anonymous Defendants, the Jane Doe Defendants may properly be dismissed from the
On October 12, 2012, the court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Mr. Conyac to
show cause in writing why all of the Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to effect
service of process, failure to identify anonymous parties, and failure to prosecute. (See Doc. #
34). Mr. Conyac responded on November 2, 2012, seeking among other things, additional
time to locate the Defendants for purposes of service of process. (See Doc. # 35). The court
having reviewed the entire case file and the applicable law, scheduled four and held three
Status Conferences (see Docs. # 29, # 38, # 41, and # 43), and being sufficiently advised in
IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Conyac shall submit additional information on or before
Monday, July 1, 2013, to enable service of process on Defendants by the U.S. Marshal. If Mr.
Conyac does not submit such additional information, the court will issue a Recommendation to
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer that this civil action be dismissed without prejudice for failure
to effect service of process, failure to identify anonymous parties, and failure to prosecute.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 3rd day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
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?