Bohman, Paul et al v. Cenlar FSB et al

Filing 2

Initial Order for Paid Pro Se: Plaintiff directed to serve complaint. Proof of service due 2/20/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 12/19/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PAUL F. BOHMAN and
MICHELLE L. BOHMAN,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-883-bbc
CENLAR FSB and
GRAY & ASSOCIATES L.L.P,
Defendants.

This is a civil action filed by plaintiffs Paul Bohman and Michelle Bohman, who are
proceeding pro se. Plaintiffs have paid the $350 fee for filing this case.
The next step is for plaintiffs to serve their complaint on the defendants. Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m), a plaintiff has 120 days after filing a complaint in which to serve the defendants.
However, that is an outside limit with few exceptions. This court requires that a plaintiff act
diligently in moving his case to resolution. If plaintiffs act promptly, they should be able to
serve their complaint on the defendants well before the deadline for doing so established in
Rule 4.
To help plaintiff understand the procedure for serving a complaint, I am enclosing with
this order a copy of a document titled “Procedure for Serving a Complaint on a Corporation,
Partnership or Unincorporated Association in a Federal Lawsuit.” I am also enclosing notice of
lawsuit and waiver of service of summons forms, along with copies of the complaint, which
plaintiff will need to send to the defendants in accordance with the procedures set out in Option
1 of the memorandum.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs serve their complaint on defendants promptly. They
should file proof of service of their complaint as soon as they have served each defendant.
(“Proof of service” is explained in the attachments.) By February 20, 2013, plaintiffs are to file
proof of service of their complaint on the defendants or tell the court why they cannot do so.
If they do not file the proof of service or explain why they could not serve the defendants, I will
order them to explain why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Entered this 19th day of December, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2