Nunn v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRETIONS et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 20 Motion to Serve the Defendants; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 21 Motion to Serve the Defendants AND STAYING SERVICE UNTIL USMS REOPENS AT FULL CAPACITY - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICARDO NUNN,
Plaintiff,

No. 17-10818

v.

District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

MICHIGAN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
On June 1, 2018, I ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Defendants [Doc. #18]. I also
provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to provide correct addresses for service on the
Defendants, noting that “it is the prisoner-plaintiff's responsibility to properly identify a
defendant in the complaint, and to provide a proper address for service.” Feliciano v.
DuBois, 846 F.Supp. 1033, 1048 (D. Mass. 1994), citing Williams v. McLemore, 10
Fed.Appx. 241, 243 (6th Cir. 2001) and Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996).
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendant Michael Henderson
[Doc. #20] and his Motions to Serve “Corizon Health, Inc.,” and Defendants Dr. Husian,
and P.A. Farris [Doc. #21]. (Corizon Health, Inc. is not named as a Defendant). He has
provided addresses for service.

If a waiver of service has not been obtained and filed, then service of the summons
and complaint is governed generally by Rule 4(e), which provides that service may be
effected:
“(1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or
in which service is effected....”
Under Michigan law, specifically M.C.R. 2.105(A)(2), service may be effected as
follows:
(2) sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, and delivery restricted to the
addressee. Service is made when the defendant acknowledges receipt of the
mail. A copy of the return receipt signed by the defendant must be attached
to proof showing service under subrule (A)(2).”
In his motion to serve Defendants Dr. Husian, and P.A. Farris [Doc. #21], Plaintiff
lists two addresses: one for non-Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. in McAllen, Texan, and
one at the Macomb Correctional Facility. The Macomb Facility, however, has already
returned a waiver of service, stating that neither Husian nor Farris are MDOC employees.
It appears, then, that Plaintiff has provided the Texas address (presumably the corporate
headquarters of Corizon) as the service address. While I have doubts that Husian and
Farris can be served at that address, I will refrain from making that assumption at this
point, and order service to be attempted.
Therefore, the United States Marshal is directed to mail copies of the summons
and complaint to Defendants Henderson, Husian, and Farris, by certified mail, return
receipt requested, at the following addresses:

Michael Henderson, DO #11462
Bureau of Health Care Services
P.O. Box 30670
Lansing, MI 48909
Dr. Husian
Corizon Health, Inc.
102 S. Broadway
McAllen, TX 78501
P.A. Farris
Corizon Health, Inc.
102 S. Broadway
McAllen, TX 78501
Under the above terms, Plaintiff’s motions to serve Defendants [Doc. #20 and #21]
are GRANTED.
As a result of the current government shutdown, U.S. Marshal’s personnel
responsible for service in IFP cases have been furloughed. This Order is therefore
STAYED until relevant funding is restored and the appropriate Marshal’s personnel are
returned to active status.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: January 11, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of
record on January 11, 2019, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen