Sundgren (ID 84212) v. Green et al

Filing 56

ORDER. By January 31, 2018, plaintiff is ordered to file a notice containing an address where defendant Mr. Green may be served. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his claims against Mr. Green. Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius on 12/29/2017. Mailed to pro se party plaintiff Matthew Sungren by regular mail. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MATTHEW SUNGREN,
Plaintiff,
v.
(fnu) GREEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-3275-DDC

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2015, naming multiple defendants including
Defendant Green. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and directed that the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) attempt to serve Mr. Green at Larned
Correctional Mental Health Facility, where Mr. Green had previously been employed. The
waiver of summons was returned to the court, and writing on the return envelope states that Mr.
Green was “not @ this address—retired 2/27/15.”1 The court then ordered the Kansas
Department of Corrections to provide Mr. Green’s last known address to the court in camera.2
The USMS then mailed a summons and copy of the complaint to Mr. Green at the address
provided by the KDOC. On December 12, 2017, the summons was returned unexecuted.3 The
return envelope indicates that it had been returned to sender and that the U.S. Postal Service had
been unable to forward it. The court has now made two attempts at serving Mr. Green
independent of any input from plaintiff. At this juncture, however, the court lacks any additional
information suggesting where Mr. Green may be served. Although plaintiff is proceeding in
1

See Return Envelope at 1, ECF No. 11.

2

Order to Show Cause at 2, ECF No. 38.

3

See Process Receipt and Return at 1, ECF No. 53 (Sealed)

forma pauperis and can rely on the USMS to serve defendant, plaintiff still bears the
responsibility of providing adequate information to enable the USMS to effect service.4
Accordingly, by January 31, 2018, plaintiff is ordered to file a notice containing an address
where Mr. Green may be served. He is cautioned that failure to do so could result in the
dismissal of his claims against Mr. Green.
Accordingly,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 29, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ K. Gary Sebelius
K. Gary Sebelius
U.S. Magistrate Judge

4

See, e.g., Pemberton v. Patton, 673 Fed. App’x 860, 862 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016) (affirming the district court’s
dismissal of claims against defendants when an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis had failed to
provide addresses where defendants could be served).

2