Coleman v. Hakala et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Mr. J. Thaddeus Eckenrode shall provide the Court with the last known addresses of defendants Michael Hakala, Ruth Taylor, Stephanie Nov ak, Elizabeth Conley and P. Stanley (Health Services Administrator), all current or former employees for Corizon, Inc. who at one time worked at SECC. Mr. Eckenrode's response to this Order should be entitled In Camera Response to Order of Febru ary 14, 2014, and should be mailed directly to the chambers of the undersigned, at the following address: United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, 555 Independence, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, 63703. IT IS FURT HER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve this Memorandum and Order on Attorney J. Thaddeus Eckenrode through the Court's CM/ECF system, as Mr. Eckenrode is registered to practice before this Court and has authorized service of Court Order s through his email address. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the in camera response, the Court will notify plaintiff in writing whether addresses for defendants have been provided, and if so, the Court will arrange for issuance of summons and Marshal's forms on plaintiffs behalf. Response to Court due by 3/17/2014. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 2/14/14. (MRS)

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 a review of the return of summons for
defendants Michael Hakala, Ruth Taylor, Elizabeth Conley, Stephanie Novak and
P. Stanley.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”) brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against current and former Corizon, Inc.
employees alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
condition relating to his polycystic liver disease.
On December 23, 2013, the Court issued an order relating to service of
process on the Corizon, Inc. employees. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this matter, the Court attempted to
effectuate service on these defendants, in their individual capacity, by personal
service at their place of employment, Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”).

Service was returned unexecuted, stating that the defendants were no longer
employed at SECC.
Because plaintiff has been unable to provide the Court with addresses at
which defendants could be served, the Court will seek assistance from the attorney
for Corizon, Inc., Mr. J. Thaddeus Eckenrode. Mr. Eckenrode, counsel of record
before this Court for Corizon, Inc. f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
(“CMS”) shall provide the Court, in camera, with the last known addresses of
defendants so that the Court may attempt to effectuate service on plaintiff’s behalf.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order, Mr. J. Thaddeus Eckenrode shall provide the Court with
the last known addresses of defendants Michael Hakala, Ruth Taylor, Stephanie
Novak, Elizabeth Conley and P. Stanley (Health Services Administrator), all
current or former employees for Corizon, Inc. who at one time worked at SECC.
Mr. Eckenrode’s response to this Order should be entitled “In Camera Response to
Order of February 14, 2014,” and should be mailed directly to the chambers of the
undersigned, at the following address: United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, 555 Independence, Cape Girardeau,
Missouri, 63703.
-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve this
Memorandum and Order on Attorney J. Thaddeus Eckenrode through the Court’s
CM/ECF system, as Mr. Eckenrode is registered to practice before this Court and
has authorized service of Court Orders through his email address.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the in camera response,
the Court will notify plaintiff in writing whether addresses for defendants have
been provided, and if so, the Court will arrange for issuance of summons and
Marshal’s forms on plaintiff’s behalf.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2014.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-