Ross v. Washington et al

Filing 26

ORDER Directing U.S. Marshals Service to use Reasonable Efforts to Serve Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (DAll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEVONTE ROSS,

Case No. 23-11785
Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v.
THOMAS ANDERSON,

Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE TO USE
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT

Plaintiff Devonte Ross, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
sues Defendant Thomas Anderson, alleging that he was deliberately
indifferent to Ross’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. ECF No. 21. The Honorable David M. Lawson referred the
case to this Court for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF
No. 25.
Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 1915(d) requires that officers of the court
“issue and serve process” when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that the court appoint
the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process in these cases. Together, Rule

4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) “stand for the proposition that when a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis the court is obligated to issue
plaintiff’s process to a United States Marshal who must in turn effectuate
service upon the defendants, thereby relieving a plaintiff of the burden to
serve process.” Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (cleaned
up); see also Donaldson v. United States, 35 F. App’x 184, 185 (6th Cir.
2002) (holding that the district court has a statutory responsibility to issue
an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s service to the Marshals Service).
The Court granted Ross’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
and ordered the Marshals Service to serve Anderson. ECF No. 6; ECF No.
23. The Marshals Service tried to serve Anderson by mailing the complaint
and a waiver of service form to the St. Louis Correctional Facility. See ECF
No. 22. But Anderson was not found at that address. Judge Lawson
ordered the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to furnish the
Marshals Service with Anderson’s last known address in December 2024.
ECF No. 23. But ten weeks have passed, and Anderson has not appeared
in the case.
The Marshals Service must now use reasonable efforts to locate and
personally serve Anderson within 60 days. See Johnson v. Herren, No.
2:13-cv-583, 2013 WL6410447, at *2-4 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2013) (ordering
2

the Marshals Service to take reasonable steps to locate the defendant’s
address through an internet search and by consulting defendant’s former
employer); Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, No. 06-CV-10934, 2013 WL 1183301,
at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2013) (Marshals Service was ordered to
personally serve the defendants after a fourth waiver request was returned
unexecuted). The Marshals Service must inform the Court of the results of
its attempt to personally serve Anderson by May 9, 2025.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 10, 2025

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on March 10, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager

4