Fox v. Strafford County Department of Corrections, Superintendent

Filing 26

ORDER Directing US Marshal to Make Service. Plaintiff has 90 days from the date of this order to provide the clerk's office with the names/addresses of the correctional officers who were working on E pod when the alleged assaults occurred. ( Notice of Compliance Deadline set for 9/17/2012.) So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(jab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Duane Leroy Fox
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-295-SM

Superintendent, Strafford
County Department of Corrections

O R D E R
Before the court for preliminary review, is pro se
plaintiff Duane Leroy Fox’s complaint (doc. no. 1), and two
addendums thereto (doc. nos. 15 & 22), which the court construes
jointly as the complaint in this action.

See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a); United States District Court District of New Hampshire
Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2).

For the reasons set forth in the

report and recommendation issued this date, the court finds that
Fox has stated a claim for the deprivation of his Fourteenth
Amendment right to be protected from harm while a pretrial
detainee.

Fox asserts this claim against unnamed correctional

officials who were working in E pod at the Strafford County
House of Corrections (“SCHC”) while he was detained there.
Because Fox seeks only monetary relief, the claims shall proceed
against the defendants in their individual capacities.

I.

Service of Complaint
At this juncture, the court would normally direct service

of the complaint on defendants.
4.3(d)(1)(B)(iii).

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); LR

Service cannot be completed, however,

because Fox has not identified the SCHC officers who allegedly
deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Fox is ordered,

therefore, to ascertain the names and addresses of the SCHC
correctional officers who were working on E pod when the alleged
assaults occurred.

Fox may obtain that information by

contacting the SCHC and requesting that it provide him with the
names of the SCHC officers who worked on E pod during the dates
he was detained there.

Once Fox acquires defendants’ names and

addresses, he is directed to provide that information to the
Clerk of this court.

Fox shall have 90 days from the date of

this order to notify the Clerk’s office that he has obtained the
names and addresses of the defendants he wishes to sue, and to
provide each defendant’s name and address to the Clerk’s office,
so that service may be completed within 120 days, as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Upon receipt of that information, the Clerk’s office is
directed to complete and issue a summons form for each defendant
identified by Fox, and to forward the summonses, along with
copies of the complaint (doc. nos. 1, 15 & 22), the order issued
2

January 17, 2012 (doc. no. 19), the report and recommendation
issued simultaneously herewith, and this order, to the U.S.
Marshal’s office to complete service in accordance with this
order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

See LR 4.3(d)(1)(B)(iii).

Service may be completed either by delivering copies of the
above-referenced documents to each of the defendants personally,
or by leaving those same documents at the respective defendant’s
abode, pursuant to New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. § 510:2 (1997).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (providing for service on individuals
within the federal judicial district).
Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead
within twenty days of service.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A).

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written
motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on
defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or
their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).
II.

Amendment of Complaint
Once Fox has acquired the identities of the individuals

against whom he intends to pursue this action, Fox is ordered to
amend his complaint to include their proper names and addresses.

3

III.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel
As part of his second motion to amend the complaint (doc.

no. 22), Fox renewed his previously denied requests for
appointment of counsel (doc. nos. 14 and 19).

For the reasons

set forth in this court’s January 17, 2012 Order (doc. no. 19),
the request for appointment of counsel is denied, without
prejudice to Fox’s filing a renewed request should circumstances
warrant it.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
June 18, 2012
cc:

Duane Leroy Fox, pro se

LBM:jkc

4