Gonzales v. Physician Health Partners et al

Filing 23

ORDER discharging the 15 Order to Show Cause, and directing service, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/1/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03084-RM-KLM
TIM GONZALES,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHYSICIAN HEALTH PARTNERS, and
UNKNOWN LICENSED MEDICAL DOCTOR, of Physician Health Partners,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the Order to Show Cause [#15]. Defendants have
not been served with the Complaint [#1]1 in this action and, therefore, are not currently
proper parties. Plaintiff, who proceeds as an incarcerated pro se litigant,2 filed this civil
action on November 14, 2014. On November 24, 2015, the United States Marshal was
directed to serve a copy of the Complaint on all Defendants in the above-captioned matter.
On December 23, 2015, the Summons was returned unexecuted with a notation that

1

“[#1]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Order.
2

The Court must construe the filings of a pro se litigant liberally. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the
Court should not be the pro se litigant’s advocate, nor should the Court “supply additional factual
allegations to round out [the pro se litigant’s] complaint or construct a legal theory on [his] behalf.”
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110).
In addition, pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants.
Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).

-1-

Physician Health Partners was not located at the address provided. Summons [#12]. No
forwarding address was provided. While Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) requires that the Court effect
service of the Complaint for plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff must provide
sufficient information for the Court to do so. See Hill v. Ortiz, No. 07-cv-00571-LTB-CBS,
2008 WL 2020289, at *6 (D. Colo. May 9, 2008). The Order to Show Cause [#15] directed
Plaintiff to provide this information. Plaintiff’s Response [#17] to the Order to Show Cause
includes three addresses at which he believes Defendant Physician Health Partners may
be served.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause [#15] is DISCHARGED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if appropriate, the Clerk shall attempt to obtain a
waiver of service from Defendant Physician Health Partners. If unable to do so, the United
States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint [#1], summons, and this Order on
Defendant Physician Health Partners at the addresses submitted by Plaintiff.

See

Declaration to Show Cause [#17] at 1-2. If appropriate, the Marshal shall first attempt to
obtain a waiver of service of these documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). All costs
of service shall be advanced by the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Physician Health Partners shall respond
to the Complaint as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after service of
process.

Dated: April 1, 2015

-2-