Hall v. University of Kentucky Hospital et al

Filing 30

OPINION & ORDER: DENYING dft's 29 Motion for Reconsideration re 29 MOTION for Reconsideration re 28 Order. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 7/21/16. (KJR)cc: COR, Hall (US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
DANNY O. HALL,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-349-KKC

Plaintiff,
V.

OPINION & ORDER

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, et al.,
Defendants.

*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Danny Hall’s motion for reconsideration.
(DE 29.) Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Coleman Federal Complex, Coleman,
Florida, filed a pro se civil complaint alleging state law medical malpractice claims. (DE 1;
DE 29-1.) On December 15, 2015, this Court granted Hall’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (DE 5.) Because Hall was granted pauper status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1), the Lexington Clerk’s Office was directed to issue summons for the named
defendants, and the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) for the Eastern District of
Kentucky was directed to serve the named defendants with the summons and complaint on
Hall’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Plaintiff received two extensions to provide an address to serve Defendant Dr.
Charles Campbell after an initially unsuccessful attempt to serve him. (DE 15; DE 17.) The
Clerk of Court received an address from Plaintiff on April 28, 2016, and a service packet
was issued the same day. (DE 20–21.) Service was again returned unexecuted. (DE 25.) The
April 25, 2016, deadline established by this Court’s last order granting an extension has
elapsed without Plaintiff providing a current address for Defendant Dr. Charles Campbell.
(DE 17.) Furthermore, the only Defendant that was properly served, University of

Kentucky Hospital, was dismissed from this action. (DE 22.) Accordingly, this Court
entered an order dismissing this action without prejudice on June 22, 2016. (DE 28.)
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration, alleging that dismissal was improper
because he cannot locate a proper address for Defendant Campbell due to his incarceration.
(DE 29 at 1.) Plaintiff further avers that service could and should be effectuated via an
order directing the USMS “to use all resources at [ ] its’ disposal to locate the defendant Dr.
Charles Campbell[.]” However, as this Court’s prior orders have made clear, a district court
is not obligated “to actively seek out the address of a defendant so that service can be
effectuated” upon him or her. Fitts v. Sicker, 232 F. App’x 436, 444 (6th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff
is free to refile his claims against Defendant Campbell after he is able to secure Dr.
Campbell’s current address. Until that time, Defendant Campbell cannot be served and,
thus, Plaintiff cannot proceed with his action.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (DE 29) is
DENIED.
Dated July 21, 2016.

2