Adams et al v. Morrissey et al

Filing 81

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered granting 70 Motion to Compel; granting 72 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 79 Motion to provide forms. The motions are granted as follows: The Clerk shall reissue summonses for Jamie Chap man, Debra Vogt, Michael Rodrigues, and James Redd III. The Clerk shall provide Rice forms for service by the United States Marshals Service. Rice shall serve Chapman, Vogt, Rodrigues, and Redd based on the information contained in the defendants op position. Rice must, within 28 days of the date of this order, provide the USMS (or any other person permitted under Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to complete service) the summonses and amended complaint for service on these f our defendants. Within 21 days of the date of this order, counsel for the DOC defendants must either (1) obtain permission from Jason Badger, Rowan Hill, and Ryan Resendes to accept service on their behalf, and notify the Court of the same; or (2) s ubmit the last known address for these three defendants to the Court UNDER SEAL. [See order for instructions to Clerk regarding confidentiality of the addresses.] Counsel for the DOC defendants must also, within 21 days, enter an appearance for defendant Fagan or inform the Court that counsel is not representing this defendant. (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JORDAN RICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL W. MORRISEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17-11059-LTS

ORDER
February 3, 2020
SOROKIN, D.J.
Now before the Court are plaintiff Jordan Rice’s motions to compel the Massachusetts
Department of Correction (“DOC”) (#70) to provide the address of defendants who are former
DOC employees, for an extension of time to complete service (#72), and for forms for service on
two defendants (#79). Upon review of these motions and the opposition thereto, the Court
GRANTS the motions as follows:
1.

The Clerk shall reissue summonses for Jamie Chapman, Debra Vogt, Michael

Rodrigues, and James Redd III. The Clerk shall provide Rice forms for service by the United
States Marshals Service (“USMS”).
2.

Rice shall serve Chapman, Vogt, Rodrigues, and Redd based on the information

contained in the defendants’ opposition [76]. 1 Rice must, within 28 days of the date of this

1

Contrary to Rice’s assertion in his reply (#80), the opposition of the DOC defendants (#76)
does not indicate that counsel for these defendants is in possession of the addresses of Chapman
and Vogt, who are apparently employees of Wellpath, formerly known as Correct Care
Solutions. See https://www.mass.gov/service-details/inmate-healthcareo (statement from DOC

order, provide the USMS (or any other person permitted under Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to complete service) the summonses and amended complaint for service on
these four defendants. Failure of Rice to comply with this directive may result in dismissal of
the claims against Chapman, Vogt, Rodrigues, and Redd.
3.

Within 21 days of the date of this order, counsel for the DOC defendants must

either (1) obtain permission from Jason Badger, Rowan Hill, and Ryan Resendes 2 to accept
service on their behalf, and notify the Court of the same; or (2) submit the last known address for
these three defendants to the Court UNDER SEAL. Failure of counsel for the DOC defendants
to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
4.

If, in accordance the preceding paragraph, counsel for the DOC defendants

submits the addresses of the former DOC employees, the Clerk shall (1) not disclose the address
of the former DOC employees to any person except an employee of this Court or the USMS;
(2) reissue summonses for these three defendants; (3) provide the USMS with all documents and
instructions for service; and (4) redact or file under seal any returns of service or other document
bearing the home address of the former DOC employees.

that it “work[s] with Wellpath, formerly Correct Care Solutions, to provide healthcare services
for inmates”) (last viewed Jan. 31, 2020). Counsel’s certification that he would mail copies of
the opposition “to those indicated as non-registered participants” is not a representation that he
mailed the document Chapman and Vogt. A party who has not yet appeared in an action,
whether personally or through counsel, is not a “participant” for purposes of a certifying service.
See Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc., § 1144 at 429 (3d ed. 2002) (“[A] party who has not
appeared is not entitled to service under Rule 5,” unless the action was commenced by a seizure
of property.). Further, the DOC is under no obligation obtain the addresses of Chapman and
Vogt from Wellpath, nor is it clear that they would be able to. The Court cannot advise Rice
how he should serve these two parties, but knowing the name of their employer may provide a
starting point.
2

The Court notes that, on January 21, 2020, counsel for the DOC defendants filed a notice of
appearance for defendant Saba (#77).
2

5.

Counsel for the DOC defendants must also, within 21 days, enter an appearance

for defendant Fagan or inform the Court that counsel is not representing this defendant.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3