Goodman v. Schubring et al

Filing 38

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Enforcement of the Court's Service Order (ECF No. 30). --Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Case 4:20-cv-13368-SDD-APP ECF No. 38, PageID.251 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES ALBERT GOODMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:20-cv-13368
District Judge Stephanie Dawkins
Davis
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

T. SCHUBRING, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
THE COURT’S SERVICE ORDER (ECF No. 30)
A.

Background
Plaintiff James Albert Goodman, proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2

& 4), is currently incarcerated at G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF). See
www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search,” last visited April 15, 2022.
On December 10, 2020, he filed the instant action against three Defendants—
Timothy Schubring, Amy Coffelt, and Lisa Stevens—under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging deliberate indifference in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights
related to injuries he suffered while operating food service equipment at JCF.
(ECF No. 1, PageID.41-51.) Defendants Schubring and Coffelt have since been
dismissed from the case for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies
against them. (ECF Nos. 28 & 35.) Thus, only Defendant Stevens remains.

Case 4:20-cv-13368-SDD-APP ECF No. 38, PageID.252 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 4

On May 14, 2021, the United States Marshal Service (USMS) acknowledged
receipt of service of process documents for Defendant Stevens (ECF No. 12,
PageID.81), but no waiver of service was filed, nor appearance made, on her
behalf. Accordingly, on September 8, 2021, the Court ordered Defendants to
provide a status update regarding the Michigan Department of the Attorney
General’s representation of Defendant Stevens. (ECF No. 20, PageID.134-135.)
In response, Defendants stated:
Here, AAG Korbakis entered a limited appearance for Lisa Stevens on
February 8, 2021. (ECF No. 6.) Upon information and belief, Lisa
Stevens was employed by the State of Michigan from July 29, 2018,
to July 28, 2020. When the Court removed the matter from PEM,
service and representation documents relating to this lawsuit were sent
to the last known address for Stevens. Subsequent attempts to contact
Stevens have not been successful. To date the undersigned has not
received any documents approving the representation for Stevens.
(ECF No. 21, PageID.139-140.)
The Court then entered an order on October 26, 2021, that the MDOC
provide to the USMS a last known address for Defendant Stevens (ECF No. 23,
PageID.178), as well as an order that same day directing the USMS to “mail a
request for waiver of service to defendant in the manner prescripted
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.” (ECF No. 24).
And the USMS acknowledged receipt of service of process documents for
Defendant Stevens on December 2, 2021. (ECF No. 26.) However, to date, no
2

Case 4:20-cv-13368-SDD-APP ECF No. 38, PageID.253 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 4

response to the summons has been received nor appearance made on Defendant
Stevens’s behalf.
B.

Instant Motion
On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for enforcement of

ECF No. 24, asserting that “Defendant Stevens appears to be hiding behind the
Cloak of the MDOC’s gates,” and requesting both that the Court enforce the order
for the USMS to serve Defendant Stevens, and that “Defendant Lisa Stevens be
served timely as ORDERED by the Court.” (ECF No. 30.) To the extent Plaintiff
seeks completed service of Defendant Stevens, his motion is DENIED, as the
Court can only direct service for a pro se Plaintiff, not guarantee service.
However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the Court’s order directing
the USMS effect personal service on Defendant Stevens, the motion is
GRANTED. On April 4, 2022, a summons was issued for Defendant Stevens
(ECF No. 36), and the USMS acknowledged receipt of service documents on April
14, 2022 (ECF No. 37). Thus, insofar as the Court could enforce ECF No. 24, the
Court has done so, and the instant motion (ECF No. 30) is resolved. Ultimately, if
Defendant Stevens cannot be successfully served with process, the case may be
subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).1

1

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
3

Case 4:20-cv-13368-SDD-APP ECF No. 38, PageID.254 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2022
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
4