Norris v. Nebr. Dept. of Corr. Srvcs. et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - On or before March 30, 2017, Plaintiff must identify by name the John and Jane Does (a) who had direct involvement in Plaintiff's allegedly objectionable post-surgery treatment and (b) who are not already named as defendan ts (Frakes, Kohl, Lewein, Wees, Small, Schmoker, Ogden, Antley, and Wesley in their individual capacities), and shall notify the court of their names and locations/addresses (if known), after which the court will process the documents necessary to initiate service of process on those defendants. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of these defendants without prejudice and without further notice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HEATH NORRIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SCOTT FRAKES, DR. RANDY
)
KOHL, BARBARA LEWEIN, CURT )
WEES, OMAHA CORR. CNTR.
)
MEDICAL STAFF, including and all )
other unnamed John and Jane Does
)
known and unknown, C.
)
SCHMOKER, DR. KATHLEEN
)
OGDEN, M. ANTLEY, M.
)
WESLEY, and JOHN AND JANE
)
DOES, known and unknown
)
employees and/or contractors,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:16CV187

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Previously, the court ordered that this action may proceed to service of process
as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs against several named defendants in their individual capacities,
“in addition to those as-yet unidentified members of the OCC medical staff (also in
their individual capacities) that had direct involvement in Plaintiff’s post-surgery
treatment.” (Filing 11 at CM/ECF p. 11.) As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis
in this case, Plaintiff is entitled to have service of process performed by the United
States Marshals. However, the United States Marshals cannot initiate service upon
unknown defendants—in this case, “OMAHA CORR. CNTR. MEDICAL STAFF,
including and all other unnamed John and Jane Does known and unknown” and
“JOHN AND JANE DOES, known and unknown employees and/or contractors.”

As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not provided the court with any
information regarding the “John and Jane Does” he references in his Complaint.
Therefore, the court will give Plaintiff 30 days in which to take reasonable steps to
identify by name the John and Jane Does (1) who had direct involvement in Plaintiff’s
allegedly objectionable post-surgery treatment and (2) who are not already named as
defendants (Frakes, Kohl, Lewein, Wees, Small, Schmoker, Ogden, Antley, and
Wesley in their individual capacities). If Plaintiff wishes to serve process upon any
defendants who have not already been identified, Plaintiff shall promptly notify the
court of their names and locations/addresses (if known), after which the court will
process the documents necessary to initiate service of process on those defendants.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
On or before March 30, 2017, Plaintiff must identify by name the John
and Jane Does (a) who had direct involvement in Plaintiff’s allegedly objectionable
post-surgery treatment and (b) who are not already named as defendants (Frakes,
Kohl, Lewein, Wees, Small, Schmoker, Ogden, Antley, and Wesley in their individual
capacities), and shall notify the court of their names and locations/addresses (if
known), after which the court will process the documents necessary to initiate service
of process on those defendants. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of these
defendants without prejudice and without further notice.
2.
The clerk of the court is directed to set the following case management
deadline: March 31, 2017: check for identification of John and Jane Does.
DATED this 8th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2