Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the et al

Filing 86

ORDER Directing the U.S. Marshal NOT to effect Service and the Clerk's Office NOT to send USM packet to Waiving Defendants only. See Order for details. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 3/10/2023. (MEH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Hollis J. Larson,

Case No. 13-cv-1074 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
The Minnesota Sex Offender Program, et al.,
Defendants.

On March 9, 2023, the Court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service of process
upon each Defendant sued in his or her personal capacity because those Defendants failed to timely
sign and return waiver of service forms. (See ECF No. 82.) The Court advised that absent a
showing of good cause in declining to waive service of process, Defendants would be required to
reimburse the U.S. Marshals Service for its reasonable expenses incurred in making service. (Id.)
The Court further advised that Defendants could avoid imposition of the costs of service by signing
and returning the waivers before service of process was effected. (Id.)
Later on March 9, 2023, Defendants Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Lucinda Jesson,
Cal Ludeman, Dennis Benson, Erik Skon, Scott Benoit, Tim Gorr, David Bornus, Janine Herbert,
Lou Stender, Nancy Johnston, Terry Kneisel, Steve Sajdak, Susan Johnson, Laurie Severson, Dan
Storkamp, David Paulson, Scott Sutton, Ann Linkert (formerly Ann Zimmerman), Phil Wilder,
Kevin Moser, Elizabeth Barbo, Tom Lundquist, Debbie Thao, Marie Skalko, Teresa Knies, Tara
Osborne, Julianna Beavens, Joanne Christenson, Blake Carey, Thane Murphy, David Ferrian,
Anita Moonen, Julie Rose, and Brian Ninneman, in their official and individual capacities,
(collectively, “Waiving Defendants”) effectively waived service of process. (See ECF No. 84-1.)

1

The Court therefore directs the U.S. Marshals Service not to effect service of process on the
Waiving Defendants. If the U.S. Marshals Service has already effected service of process on the
Waiving Defendants, they remain liable for the costs, consistent with the Court’s prior Order (ECF
No. 82). The Court’s order to the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on defendants in their
personal capacities (ECF No. 82) remains in full force and effect as to all other defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2023

s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge

2