Jackson v. Doe et al

Filing 57

P's # 54 Motion is DENIED. To the extent P is asking the court to effect service by publication, P's # 54 Motion is DENIED as moot. Clerk's office shall issue a summons herein as to D Minnix and send the same to the USM with the ad dress provided under seal. ( Order and Summons delivered to USM on 12/21/2011. ) It is further ordered that the Clerk shall send P 1 USM-285 form, 1 copy of the # 12 Second Amended Complaint and 1 copy of this order for the D. ( Docs mailed to P 12/ 21/2011.) P shall have 10 days after receipt of the form complete the USM-285 form as to defendant Minnix and return it along with the other documents to the USM for service. The deadline is extended to allow P to attempt to effect service on any uns erved defendants herein, either personally or by publication, until on or before February 15, 2012. There shall be no further extensions in this regard. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 12/21/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

ALFONSO JACKSON,

)
)
Plaintiff ,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN DOE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

3:10-cv-00771-LRH (WGC)
ORDER

14
15

Before this court is “Plaintiff’s Motion Identifying Unserved Defendant James Minnix and

16

Request for an Order to Identify Him Through Publication.” (Doc. #54.) The court cannot discern

17

exactly what plaintiff is seeking in his Motion.

18

This “motion” appears to be almost identical to plaintiff’s earlier “motion” (Doc. #43) wherein

19

plaintiff requested an order to “identify three unserved defendants through publication” (Glinda Strolk,

20

Joshua Conner and James Minnix). Following a hearing on December 9, 2011, plaintiff’s earlier

21

motion (Doc. #43) was “granted to the extent that Plaintiff may attempt to serve by publication those

22

defendants who have not appeared in the case.” Plaintiff was also advised that the court cannot assist

23

him with this and that he is responsible for any expenses that may arise relative to service by

24

publication. (See, Minutes of Proceedings, 12/9/11, Doc. #53). Therefore, plaintiff’s Motion

25

(Doc. #54) is DENIED. To the extent plaintiff is asking the court to effect service by publication,

26

plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. #54) is DENIED as moot as the court already authorized service by

27

publication.

28

1

At the hearing on December 9, 2011, the defendants were ordered to verify the last known

2

addresses of the three unserved defendants, which they did on December 14, 2011. (Docs. #55 and

3

#56.) According to their “Notice,” the last known addresses for two of the defendants (Conner and

4

Stroik) were verified. Defendants’ counsel advised the last known address of defendant Minnix has

5

since been updated. Defendants’ counsel represented he would submit the last known address of

6

defendant Minnix under seal. Therefore, the Clerk’s office shall issue a summons herein as to

7

defendant Minnix and send the same to the U.S. Marshall with the address provided under seal to

8

attempt to effect service on defendant Minnix.

9

It is further ordered that the Clerk shall send to Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one copy of

10

the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #12) and one (1) copy of this order for the Defendants.

11

Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days after receipt of the form complete the USM-285 service form as to

12

defendant Minnix and return it along with the other documents to the U.S. Marshal for service.

13

Pursuant to the Amended Screening Order (Doc. #14), service on the defendants was to be

14

completed within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date the second amended complaint was filed.

15

The Second Amended Complaint was filed on May 31, 2011; one hundred twenty (120) days from that

16

date is September 27, 2011, and the deadline to complete service in the method specified in that Order

17

(Doc. #14) has long since expired. However, since the U.S. Marshal did not file the unexecuted

18

summons as to defendants Conner and Stroik respectively (Docs. #36 and #37) until October 13, 2011,

19

good cause exists to extend the deadline to allow plaintiff to attempt to effect service on any unserved

20

defendants herein, either personally or by publication, on or before February 15, 2012.

21

There shall be no further extensions in this regard.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

DATED: December 21, 2011.
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2