Hollis v. Hayne et al

Filing 2

ORDER Regarding Service of Process. Plaintiff must serve the Defendant with the summons and complaint by July 15, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on May 29, 2013. (KM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

JENNIFER WARDLE HOLLIS
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv51-KS-MTP

DR. STEVEN HAYNE, AND
JOHN DOES 1-10

DEFENDANTS

ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS
This matter is before the court sua sponte for case management purposes. Plaintiff filed
this civil rights action on March 15, 2013, and paid the filing fee. To date, no summons has been
issued for the Defendant, Dr. Steven Hayne.
Plaintiff is reminded that it is her responsibility to properly serve the Defendants with
process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 within 120 days after the complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c) (providing that the “plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served
within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who
makes service”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if the plaintiff fails to serve the
defendant with the complaint within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court “must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant . . .”).
Because Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
court and the U.S. Marshals Service have no obligation to assist Plaintiff with the service of
process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c); L.U.Civ.R. 4(b) (“The United States Marshal does not serve
process in civil actions except on behalf of the federal government, in actions proceeding in
forma pauperis, on writs of seizure and executions of judgments, and when otherwise ordered by
a federal court.”); see also Whiting v. Alvarado, No. 2:03cv53, 2004 WL 527793, at *1-2 (N.D.

Tex. Mar. 17, 2004) (denying plaintiff’s motion for service of process by U.S. Marshal where
plaintiff was not proceeding in forma pauperis). Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1.

That Plaintiff must properly serve the Defendant with the summons and complaint
by July 15, 2013, and must file the proof of service of the summons and
complaint by the server’s affidavit pursuant to Rule 4(l).

2.

That Plaintiff’s failure to properly and timely serve the Defendant in accordance
with Rule 4 may result in his dismissal and the dismissal of this matter.

3.

That it is the Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. The court notes that
there is no address or telephone number on file for Plaintiff at the Clerk’s office.
Thus, the court is unable to forward this order to Plaintiff or to communicate with
her. This order is entered in the event Plaintiff may review or check the docket in
this case.

4.

Plaintiff’s failure keep the court apprised of her current address or failure to
comply with any order of this court will be deemed as a purposeful delay and
contumacious act by the Plaintiff and may result in the dismissal of this case.

SO ORDERED this the 29th day of May, 2013.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

2