Davitt v. Doe

Filing 10

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Effectuate Service of Process. Plaintiff has 30 days to furnish the U.S. Marshal the required USM-285 form with relevant information as to each Defendant on each form. The Court may order a subpoena duces tecum to an appropriate entity in order to facilitate service if necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/6/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - USM 285 form mailed to Plaintiff - SLD)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
MICHAEL THOMAS DAVITT,
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. MITZER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01504-GMN-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Michael Thomas Davitt’s Motion to Effectuate
13
Service of Process (#9), filed March 19, 2015. Plaintiff informs the Court that the United States
14
Marshal was unable to effectuate service of process based on the information provided in Plaintiff’s
15
USM-285 forms. In its screening order (#5), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file notice within twenty
16
(20) days receipt of the USM-285 showing whether service had been accomplished. Plaintiff was also
17
instructed to identify Defendants that had been served and those that had not been served. To the extent
18
Plaintiff sought an additional attempt on any unserved defendant, he was instructed to “file a motion
19
with the Court identifying the unserved Defendant(s) and specifying a more detailed name and/or
20
address for said Defendant(s), or whether some other manner of service should be attempted.” (#5) at
21
7:3-6.
22
Plaintiff filed notice indicating that Defendant Dr. Mitzer, the only named defendant in this
23
matter, has not been served. He asks that the Court direct the U.S. Marshal to make another attempt at
24
service at the address previously listed on the form USM-285. The Court declines to reorder service
25
based on the prior USM-285, but will send Plaintiff a new USM-285 to be provided to the U.S. Marshal
26
to aid in the service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Dr. Mitzer. Accordingly,
27
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Effectuate Service of Process (#9) is
28
denied without prejudice.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a new, blank USM-

2

285 form. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days within which to furnish to the U.S. Marshal the required

3

USM-285 form with relevant information as to each Defendant on each form. Within twenty (20) days

4

after receiving from the U.S. Marshal a copy of the USM-285 form showing whether service has been

5

accomplished, Plaintiff must file a notice with the Court identifying which Defendants were served and

6

were not served, if any. If Plaintiff wishes to have service again attempted on any unserved Defendants,

7

then a motion must be filed with the Court specifying a more detailed name and/or address for said

8

Defendants, or whether some other manner of service should be attempted.

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court, in its discretion, may order a subpoena duces
tecum to an appropriate entity in order to facilitate service if necessary.
Dated: April 6, 2015.

12
13
14

________________________________________
C.W.Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2