Givler v. Lambert et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting plaintiff's 13 Motion to Serve Defendants Bill Fancher and Kathy Walker, to the extent the Clerk is DIRECTED to issue alias summons for defendant Fancher, and the U.S. Marshals Service is ORDE RED to personally serve copies of the summons and complaint upon defendant Bill Fancher at the Blount County Sheriff's Department, the Blount County Detention Center, or wherever the defendant may be found. The motion is DENIED at this time as to defendant Walker. Denying plaintiff's 15 Motion to Clarify Cases ; denying 16 Motion for Free Copies of All Documents due to In Forma Pauperis Status ; denying 21 Motion for Default Judgment as to Jeffery Lambert; denying Second 26 Motion for Default Judgment as to Jeffery Lambert; denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; and denying Third 30 Motion for Default Judgment as to Jeffrey Lambert. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 3/20/12. (c/m) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
MARK W. GIVLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

No.:

3:11-cv-179
(VARLAN/SHIRLEY)

JEFFERY LAMBERT,
BILL FANCHER, and
KATHY WALKER,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff,
who is confined in the Blount County Detention Center, alleges he was assaulted by
defendants Fancher and Lambert, and denied medical attention by defendant Walker. The
matter is before the court on various non-dispositive motions filed by the plaintiff.1
The Court allowed process to issue as to the defendants Lambert, Fancher, and
Walker. The U.S. Marshals Service served the summons and complaint upon the defendants
by certified mail. Process was returned executed as to defendant Lambert. Process was
returned unexecuted as to defendants Fancher and Walker; the envelope for defendant
Walker was stamped with the notation "not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward" and
the envelope for defendant Fancher was stamped with the notation "refused." Plaintiff moves
the Court to order service upon defendants Fancher and Walker by hand. After process was

1

There is also pending a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Jeffery Lambert.

returned unexecuted, and prior to filing his motion, plaintiff sent a letter to the Court stating
that defendant Fancher still works at the Blount County Detention Center, but that defendant
Walker is no longer employed there and plaintiff is attempting to determine her address.
Under the circumstances, plaintiff's motion [Doc. 13] is GRANTED to the extent the
Clerk is DIRECTED to issue alias summons for defendant Fancher, and the U.S. Marshals
Service is ORDERED to personally serve copies of the summons and complaint upon
defendant Bill Fancher at the Blount County Sheriff's Department, the Blount County
Detention Center, or wherever the defendant may be found. The motion is DENIED at this
time as to defendant Walker.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to clarify, in which he states that he filed a second action
against the defendants when he had not heard anything about this prior case. The second
action, Mark W. Givler v. Bill Fancher, Jeffery Lambert, and Kathy Walker, Civil Action No.
3:11-cv-221 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2011) (Order of Dismissal) was dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with the orders of the Court when plaintiff
failed to return the service packets for the defendants. According to plaintiff, after mailing
the complaint in the second action, he received the paperwork on this case and assumed the
second complaint would be stricken from the record. Plaintiff's motion to clarify is more of
an explanation than a motion, and for that reason the motion [Doc. 15] is DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for copies, in which he asks that copies of all documents
in this case and his three other pending cases be sent free of charge to him and his sister,
Ruthe Givler, who he states is an out-of-work paralegal. Plaintiff does not state why he
2

needs copies of documents that should already be in his possession and his sister, who is not
a party to the case, clearly is not entitled to free copies of pleadings in plaintiff's cases. The
motion for copies [Doc. 16] is DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed three motions for default judgment against defendant Lambert.
Defendant Lambert has filed a motion for summary judgment in response to the complaint.
Accordingly, the motions for default judgment [Docs. 21, 26, and 30] are DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The appointment of counsel
in a civil case is a matter within the discretion of the court. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d
1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). After careful consideration of plaintiff's motion, including the
type and nature of the case, its complexity, and the plaintiff's ability to prosecute his claim,
this court is of the opinion that counsel is not necessary at this time to ensure that plaintiff's
claims are fairly heard. See Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992); Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
27] is DENIED.

ENTER:

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3