REID-DOUGLAS v. WETZEL et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Service by U.S. Marshal, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supply the necessary number of copies of the Second Amended Complaint along with the necessary number of Marshal 285 forms and the Notice of Lawsuit/Requests for Waiver o f Service by August 30, 2013. Failure to do so can result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute/obey court orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/26/2013. A copy of the order along with this Notice of Electronic Filing is being sent to Plaintiff at his address of record. (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN REID-DOUGLAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN E. WETZEL; DAVID PINKETT;
)
LOUIS S. FOLINO; LORRINDA
)
WINFIELD; WALLACE LEGGETT;
)
DAVID GRAINEY; JEFFREY ROGERS; )
MARIA BALESTERIER; IVAN; MARK )
CAPPOZZA; TRACEY SHAWLEY; and )
JAMES BARNACLE,
)
)
Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 13-500
Judge Nora Barry Fischer/
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF No. 19

ORDER
Steven Reid-Douglas (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for Service on the Attorney General
(“Motion for Service”). ECF No. 19. This order addresses that Motion for Service.
Plaintiff initially filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”)
in order to pursue a Civil Rights action.

ECF No. 1. His IFP Motion was granted. ECF No.

5. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against sixteen (16) defendants. ECF No. 10.
Attached to the Amended Complaint were exhibits. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered a
Deficiency Order advising Plaintiff that he failed to furnish the correct number of copies of the
Amended Complaint in addition to the Marshal’s 285 Forms and the Notice of Lawsuit and
request for waiver of service of summons. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was given until July 9, 2013 to
comply. On July 10, 2013, the Court received Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint which

named twelve (12) defendants and which had 7 exhibits attached thereto. ECF No. 18. On the
same day, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Service, which for the reasons below will be denied.
In the Motion for Service, Plaintiff notes that his IFP Motion was granted and that he was
ordered to file sufficient copies of the complaint for service. Plaintiff complains that despite the
grant of his IFP Motion and given his poverty, it is impossible for him to obtain thirteen
photocopies of his sixty-one page Second Amended Complaint which will cause Plaintiff to
incur a cost of $79.80 and he only gets $10.00 per month given to him by the prison authorities
for litigation as an indigent prisoner. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to have an order directing the
United States Marshal to serve the Office of the Attorney General Of Pennsylvania with the
Second Amended Complaint since one of their attorneys already entered a limited appearance
and have her waive service as to each of the twelve defendants.
Even though Plaintiff says the Department of Corrections provided only $10.00 in legal
expenses each month for litigation, this is not the only income Plaintiff receives. As amply
demonstrated by the Inmate Account Statement accompanying Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, he
receives personal gifts of money roughly every two months ranging from 30 dollars to 60 dollars
at a time. Hence, this money, as well, is available to Plaintiff to pay for his litigation activities
which, in addition to the present case, are multiple and ongoing. See, e.g., Reid-Douglas v.
Mayer et al., 4:2009-cv-576 (M.D. Pa.); Reid-Douglas v. Harding et al., 1:2010-cv-2049
(M.D.Pa.); Reid-Douglas v. McAnany at al., 2:2012-cv-1168 (W.D. Pa.) .
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supply a copy of the Second Amended Complaint
for each defendant named in the Second Amended Complaint, if he names 12 Defendants, he
must provide 12 service copies of the Second Amended Complaint along with the same number
of United States Marshal Form 285 and with the same number of completed notices of lawsuit

2

and requests for waiver of service.1 See, e.g., Holly v. True, NO. 92 C 1636, 1992 WL 159318,
at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 1992) (“The court denies Holly's motion to submit his complaint without
copies. If Holly wants to sue twenty-eight defendants, he must provide the court with sufficient
copies of his complaint in order to effect service. If Holly finds this task difficult, he should
seriously consider whether he wants to sue each of the defendants he has named. One of the
purposes of requiring even pro se litigants to provide service copies is to cause them to focus
their efforts against those individuals truly responsible for the deprivations alleged in the
complaint.”). To the extent that Plaintiff cannot afford to pay for photocopies of the Second
Amended Complaint, then he may hand copy each such complaint2 so long as the hand copies
are identical. The Court will not provide Plaintiff copies nor is the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections required to provide such copies free of charge. See, e.g., Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (“There is no provision in the [IFP] statute for the payment by the
government of the costs of deposition transcripts, or any other litigation expenses, and no other
statute authorizes courts to commit federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a
civil suit brought by an indigent litigant.”). It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide sufficient
copies. If he does not do so, his case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or for
failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff has been warned.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide by August 30, 2013, the necessary number of copies of
the Second Amended Complaint as well as sufficient copies of USM Form 285 and Notices of

1

If he does not already have them, Plaintiff may request in writing from the Clerk’s Office the
US Marshal Form 285 and the Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waivers.
2

As for the Exhibits attached to the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff will simply have to
pay for the photo copies of such exhibits.
3

Lawsuit/Requests for Waivers of Service. Failure to do so will result in the Civil Action being
dismissed. Plaintiff’s Motion for Service is DENIED.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to
file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any
appeal is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street,
Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any
appellate rights.

s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: July 26, 2013

cc:

The Honorable Nora Barry Fisher
United States District Judge
STEVEN REID-DOUGLAS
JH-8196
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

4