Hall v. Pandya et al
Filing
37
ORDER Granting 20 Motion to Serve Defendant Haresha Pandya Through the U.S. Marshal - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARESH PANDYA, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-12022
DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE
DEFENDANT HARESH PANDYA THROUGH THE U.S. MARSHAL [20]
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Matthew Hall’s Motion to Serve
Defendant Haresh Pandya through the U.S. Marshal. (Docket no. 20.) Defendant Corizon
Health, Inc. filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Docket no. 21.) This action has been
referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Docket no. 5.) The undersigned has
reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The undersigned is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff Matthew Hall filed the instant pro se civil rights action on May 20, 2014
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Haresh Pandya and Corizon Health, Inc.
were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
(Docket no. 1.) On May 29, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and ordered the United States Marshals Service to serve the appropriate papers in this
case on Defendants without prepayment of the costs for such service. (Docket nos. 3 and 4.)
Defendant Pandya’s waiver of service was returned unexecuted on June 19, 2014. (Docket no.
8.) Attached to the unexecuted waiver is a letter from Corizon Health, Inc. dated June 10, 2014
explaining that Corizon cannot accept documents on Defendant Pandya’s behalf because he is
not employed by Corizon. (Id. at 2.) As of November 4, 2014, Defendant Pandya still had not
been served. On that date, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff “to show cause why his complaint
[against Defendant Pandya] should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m).” (Docket no. 19 at 1.)
Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause on November 20, 2014 by filing the
instant Motion to Serve Defendant Haresh Pandya through the U.S. Marshal. (Docket no. 20.)
In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that his Complaint against Defendant Pandya should not be
dismissed because Plaintiff was misinformed of Defendant Pandya’s address. (Id.) Plaintiff asks
the Court to help him locate Defendant Pandya, whom he believes to be a doctor employed by
Corizon Health, Inc. (Id.) Plaintiff then asks the Court to either direct the U.S. Marshals Service
to serve Defendant Pandya at Corizon Health, Inc. or contact the Michigan Department of
Corrections regarding Defendant Pandya’s location. (Id.) Corizon Health, Inc. responded to
Plaintiff’s Motion and advised the Court that attempting to serve Defendant Pandya at Corizon’s
offices would be ineffective because Defendant Pandya is not a Corizon employee. (Docket no.
21 at 2.) Defendant Pandya has been represented by counsel for the Michigan Department of
Corrections in other matters before this Court. Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S.
Marshals Service to attempt service on Defendant Pandya through the Michigan Department of
Corrections.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendant Haresh
Pandya through the U.S. Marshal [20] is GRANTED IN PART. The Court directs the U.S.
2
Marshals Service to attempt service on Haresh Pandya through the Michigan Department of
Corrections.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date
of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Dated: April 14, 2015
s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Matthew Hall and Counsel of
Record on this date.
Dated: April 14, 2015
s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager
3
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?