Nakharath v. Vathananonh et al
ORDER terminating 4 Motion of Change Phone Number; denying 7 Motion of Request for Mrs Sakey Stub's address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 1/13/2015. (agm1) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Bounpone Vathananonh, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-2135
JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM
Magistrate Judge Kemp
Plaintiff has filed a motion notifying the Court that she
has changed her phone number and a motion requesting that the
Court assist her in finding the address of one of the named
The Court construes plaintiff’s first motion as a notice
updating her contact information and the filing (Doc. 4) shall be
removed from the Court’s pending motions list.
With respect to plaintiff’s second motion, “‘[d]istrict
judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro
se litigants.’” Thomas v. Romanowski, 362 Fed.Appx. 452 (6th Cir.
2010), quoting Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).
impartial decisionmaker, it is not a federal judge’s role or
responsibility to track down a defendant’s address so a plaintiff
may serve process.”
Johnson v. Clark, 2013 WL 646022, at *5
(D.Ariz. February 21, 2013).
“This degree of involvement ‘would
undermine [trial] judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.’”
Id., quoting Pliler, 542 U.S. at 231.
second motion (Doc. 7) is denied.
Further, plaintiff is advised that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m) provides, in relevant part:
If a defendant is not served within 120
days after the complaint is filed,
the court – on motion or on its own
after notice to the plaintiff must dismiss the action without prejudice
against that defendant or order that service
be made within a specified time. But if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure,
the court must extend the time for service
for an appropriate period.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?