Epps v. Laudenschlager et al

Filing 5

ORDER re plaintiff's 4 request via letter for service by Clerk's office. The court denies plaintiff's request. It is the responsibility of plaintiff, not the Clerk's office, to serve each defendant with a summons and complaint. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG) Distributed on 5/5/2014. (rh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Allen Christopher Epps,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Officer Erick Laudenschlager, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 4:14-cv-048

Plaintiff initiated the above-entitled action pro se on May 1, 2014, with the filing of a
complaint and payment of the filing fee. Accompanying plaintiff’s complaint (of which he
submitted multiple copies) was a cover letter in which plaintiff stated, amongst other things, that it
was his understanding that summonses “will be sent to each defendant by the court.”
Insofar as plaintiff is requesting the Clerk’s office to effectuate service on defendants, it is
DENIED. Plaintiff has not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In an event, his payment
of the filing fee suggests that he has the financial wherewithal to effectuate service. The court
appreciates that plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Nevertheless, it incumbent upon him, not the Clerk’s
office, to serve each defendant with a summons and complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
4. The Clerk’s office is directed to issue summonses to plaintiff and return to plaintiff the multiple
copies of the complaint he has submitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2014.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court