Waters v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al
ORDER directing the U S Marshal to use reasonable efforts to locate and effect service of process on Defendants Scott, Mason, Poss, and Taylor. (The service deadline has been extended to 9/15/2017, and the U S Marshal shall notify the Court within 21 days of the Status - due by 8/7/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 7/17/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; WESLEY O’NEAL,
Correctional Unit Manager; FNU POSS,
Correctional Officer; FNU SCOTT,
Correctional Officer; FNU TAYLOR,
Correctional Officer; ELLIS LORGE,
Correctional Officer; and JAMES MASON, )
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia,
commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events that
occurred at Johnson State Prison (“JSP”). He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(“IFP.”) Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, he is entitled to rely on the United States
Marshal to effect service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Accordingly, on
March 17, 2017, the Court directed the Marshal to effect service of process on Defendants.
(Doc. no. 16.)
Waivers of service for Defendants Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC),
Lorge, and O’Neal were returned, and these Defendants filed an answer on June 12, 2017.
(Doc. nos. 23, 24, 28, 30.) On July 12, 2017, the Marshal’s Returns of Service came back
unexecuted for Defendants Scott, Mason, Poss, and Taylor. (Doc. no. 38.) The forms for
Defendants Mason and Poss indicate they could not be located because they no longer work
at JSP. (Id. at 3, 5.) The forms for Defendants Scott and Taylor indicate they could not be
correctly identified. (Id. at 1, 10.)
In Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit
addressed the propriety of dismissing a defendant in a § 1983 action brought by a pro se
prisoner proceeding IFP, where the defendant had been dismissed for failing to timely serve
the defendant. In Richardson, a prison guard defendant could not be served at the prison
because he no longer worked there. Richardson, 598 F.3d at 739-40. In addressing the
prisoner-plaintiff’s challenge to the dismissal of this defendant, the Eleventh Circuit ruled
that “[i]t is unreasonable to expect incarcerated and unrepresented prisoner-litigants to
provide the current addresses of prison-guard defendants who no longer work at the prison.”
Id. The Eleventh Circuit went on to conclude that as long as an incarcerated plaintiff
provides enough information to identify a defendant, 1 the Marshal must use “reasonable
effort” to locate that defendant and effect service of process before the defendant can be
dismissed. Id. at 740.
Here, Plaintiff has provided identifying information that was apparently not used in
attempting to effect service on these Defendants. First, although Plaintiff was unable to
The Eleventh Circuit quoted with approval language from a Seventh Circuit case that
stated, “[T]he prisoner need furnish no more than the information necessary to identify the
defendant.” Richardson, 598 F.3d at 739 (citing Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 602
(7th Cir. 1990)).
ascertain the first names of any unserved defendant, he has provided sufficient information to
readily ascertain the identities of Defendants Scott and Taylor. As to these Defendants,
Plaintiff states they were both first shift officers assigned to the isolation/segregation unit at
Johnson State Prison on or between October 27, 2015 and January 6, 2016. (Doc. no. 22, p.
2.) The allegations in the complaint provide specific dates in which Plaintiff interacted with
these Defendants. (Doc. no. 1, p. 18.) For example, Plaintiff states that on December 9,
2015, Officer Scott escorted him to the showers, and on December 11, 2015, Defendant
Taylor escorted him to the showers. (Id. at 12, 18.) The Court is convinced this information
is sufficient to ascertain the identities of Defendants Scott and Taylor. Thus, reasonable
efforts in this instance would include contacting JSP officials with this specific information
in order to obtain sufficient information to correctly identify and effect service on
Defendants Scott and Taylor.
As for Defendants Mason and Poss, the Court understands that prison officials may
not maintain address information for all former employees. However, given their identities
have been ascertained, the Marshal should be able to utilize its resources to locate these
individuals based on their identities and fact that they were formerly employed at JSP.
Therefore, pursuant to Richardson, supra, the Court DIRECTS the U.S. Marshal to
use reasonable efforts to locate and effect service of process on Defendants Scott, Mason,
Poss, and Taylor. As the ninety days allowed for service have expired, the Court EXTENDS
the deadline for service to sixty-days from the date of this Order. 2 The Court will not, at this
time, require the Marshal to attempt personal service. Rather, the Marshal shall attempt
service by mail as set forth in the Court’s December March 17, 2017 Order. (See doc. no.
16.) The Court further DIRECTS the Marshal to notify the Court in writing within twentyone days of the date of this Order as to whether these Defendants have been located.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for a ninety-day
extension of the service deadline. (Doc. no. 29.)
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?