Hester v. Malatinsky et al
OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JAMES HESTER, # 23227-047
Case Number 17-11088
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
WILLIAM MALATINSKY, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff James Hester is an inmate currently confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Milan, Michigan. On April 4, 2017, Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned pro se
civil rights action by filing his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. United
States, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On April 11, 2017 Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an
order of deficiency because Plaintiff had failed to pay the required filing fee, or, in the
alternative, to provide an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff responded
by filing an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, which was granted on July 14,
2017. See ECF Nos. 6-8.
Also on April 11, 2017, the magistrate signed an order directing plaintiff to provide two
additional copies of his complaint in order to effect proper service upon the defendants. See ECF
No. 5. Plaintiff was directed to remedy the deficiency by May 11, 2017. To date, plaintiff has
not complied with the Court’s order.
An inmate bringing a civil rights complaint must specifically identify each defendant
against whom relief is sought, and must give each defendant notice of the action by serving upon
him or her a summons and copy of the complaint. Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F. Supp. 1033, 1048
(D. Mass. 1994). Where a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the district court must bear
the responsibility for issuing the plaintiff’s process to a United States Marshal’s Office, who
must effect service upon the defendants once the plaintiff has properly identified the defendants
in the complaint. Williams v. McLemore, 10 F. App’x. 241, 243 (6th Cir. 2001); Byrd v. Stone,
94 F. 3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Because Plaintiff has not complied with the order directing him to provide copies needed
to effect service upon the defendants, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for want of
prosecution. See Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App’x. 74, 75-6 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis v. United States, 73
F. App’x. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is SUMMARILY DISMISSED
It is further ORDERED that an appeal from this decision would be frivolous and could
not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: July 14, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on July 14, 2017.
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager
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?