Coleman v. Hakala et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 38 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Party Defendant Hakala filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman, 39 MOTION for Entry of Clerk's Default against Defendant Novak filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman, 41 MOTION for Entry of Clerk's Default against Defendant Taylor filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman, 37 MOTION for Entry of Clerk's Default against Defendant Hakala filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman, 42 MOTION for Defaul t Judgment as to Party Defendant Taylor filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman, 40 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Party Defendant Novak filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or causeprocess to issue upon the complaint. The Clerk shall have the United States Marshals serve defendants Elizabeth Conley, Michael Hakala, Stephanie Novak,Ruth Taylor and P. Stanley, in person, by personal summons at their place o femployment, Southeastern Correctional Center ("SECC"). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants shall reply to plaintiff's claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/23/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALONZO DWAYNE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL HAKALA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13CV61 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s numerous motions for entry of
default and default judgment. Also before the Court is a letter from counsel for
the Missouri Department of Corrections relative to defendant Elizabeth Conley.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”) brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against current and former Corizon, Inc. and
Missouri Department of Corrections employees alleging that they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition relating to his polycystic
liver disease.
On October 24, 2013, the Court issued an order relating to service of
process in this case. Plaintiff had identified Elizabeth Conley as an employee of
the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) in his complaint, therefore,
the Court attempted to serve process on her through the Court’s waiver agreement

it maintains with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. On December 12, 2013,
the Court received a correspondence from Assistant Attorney General Eileen
Ruppe Krispin notifying the Court that Elizabeth Conley was not employed by
MDOC, but rather was an employee of Corizon, Inc. The Court will attempt to
serve process on Elizabeth Conley by personal service on her at SECC.
Plaintiff’s motions for entry of default and default judgment, however, will
be denied, as service on defendants Michael Hakala, Stephanie Novak, Ruth
Taylor and P. Stanley was not accomplished within the confines of Fed.R.Civ.P.4.
The return of summons on these individuals shows that service was done by the
U.S. Marshals at the registered agent for Corizon, Inc. which is not proper service
on an individual under the Federal Rules. As such, plaintiff’s motions for default
must be denied.
Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to instruct the United
States Marshals to serve defendants Elizabeth Conley. Michael Hakala, Stephanie
Novak, Ruth Taylor, and P. Stanley, in their individual capacity, in person, at their
place of employment, Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for entry of default
and for default judgment [Doc. #37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42] are DENIED.
-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint. The Clerk shall have the United States
Marshals serve defendants Elizabeth Conley, Michael Hakala, Stephanie Novak,
Ruth Taylor and P. Stanley, in person, by personal summons at their place of
employment, Southeastern Correctional Center (“SECC”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2),
defendants shall reply to plaintiff’s claims within the time provided by the
applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-