Santistevan v. Hidahi et al

Filing 24

ORDER : On or before November 7, 2014, Plaintiff shall provide the court with an address at which Defendant Pachello can be served. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/23/2014. (trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–00936–RM–KMT
ARTHUR SANTISTEVAN, AKA, ARTHUR SANTISTEVAN
Plaintiff,
v.
EX DETECTIVE TODD PACHELLO, LONE TREE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court sua sponte on Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant Todd
Pachello. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Prisoner Complaint was filed on August 4, 2014. (Doc.
No. 15.) On August 13, 2014, Senior District Judge Lewis T. Babcock entered an order
dismissing Defendants Municipality of the City of Lone Tree, Colorado; Municipality of the City
of Castle Rock, Colorado; Ron C. Pinson; Unknown Chief, Douglas County Sheriff’s
Department; and Unknown John or Jane Does. (Doc. No. 16.) Accordingly, only Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Pachello remain pending. (See id.)
Because Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(see Doc. No. 4), he is entitled to have the United States Marshals Service serve process on his
behalf, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). On August 15, 2014, the Clerk of Court sent a copy of
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Summons, and Notice of Availability of Magistrate
Judge to the United States Marshal Service for purposes of effectuating service of process on

Defendant Pachello. (Doc. No. 18.) On August 27, 2014, an unexecuted Return of Service was
filed by the Marshal Service indicating that Defendant Pachello is no longer employed at the
Lone Tree Police Department and that his current whereabout are unknown. (Doc. No. 20.)
As indicated by the unexecuted Return of Service, Defendant Pachello cannot be served
at the address provided by Plaintiff in his Second Amended Complaint. Although Plaintiff is a
pro se litigant, he is required to comply with the same rules of procedure governing other
litigants, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which governs service of process. Green
v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992); DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 980 (10th Cir.
1993). Moreover, although Plaintiff is entitled to have service completed by the United States
Marshal Service, Plaintiff must provide the court with the proper information to locate Defendant
Pachello before he can be required to answer to this lawsuit.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that, on or before November 7, 2014, Plaintiff shall provide the court with
an address at which Defendant Pachello can be served.
Dated this 23rd day of September, 2014.

2