Opinion
Civil Action 23-CV-5118
08-30-2024
KEVIN COIT Plaintiff v. R. MARSH, et al., Defendants
ORDER
NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
AND NOW, this 30th day of August 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff Kevin Coit's Amended Complaint, (ECF 14), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, Coit's claims against J. Sorber, V. Funrak, M. Sipple, and C. Hensley are DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate J. Sorber, V. Funrak, M. Sipple, and C. Hensley as Defendants.
3. The case shall proceed at this time to service by the U.S. Marshal Service, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), against the following Defendants:
a. R. Marsh;
b. T. Furguson;
c. L. Malichaik;
d. B. Schnider; and e. A. Glushakow.
4. In anticipation of service by the U.S. Marshal Service, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Coit together with one copy of the U.S. Marshal Service of Process Receipt and Return Form USM-285 (“USM-285 Form”) for each Defendant listed in paragraph three (3) of this Order.The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to note the mailing on the docket.
This form is available online at https://www.usmarshals.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/usm-285process-receipt.pdf.
5. To proceed with service, Coit must complete a USM-285 Form for each Defendant listed in paragraph three (3) and return the completed form(s) to the Clerk's Office within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Service cannot be made by the U.S. Marshal Service until Coit completes and returns these forms.
6. In completing the USM-285 Form(s), Coit is instructed as follows:
a. Coit should complete a separate USM-285 Form for each Defendant listed in paragraph three (3) of this Order. Only one Defendant's name should appear on each USM-285 Form.
b. Coit shall not complete a USM-285 Form for any individual or entity that is not listed as a Defendant in paragraph three (3) of this Order, including but not limited to any Defendant who already has been dismissed from this case.
c. Coit should include as much identifying information as possible for each Defendant, including the Defendant's first name, last name, and, where relevant, the Defendant's badge number.
d. Coit must provide each Defendant's complete address at a location where that Defendant can be served. The U.S. Marshals Service cannot serve a Defendant at a P.O. Box address. It is Coit's responsibility, and not the duty of the Court, the Clerk's Office, or the Marshals Service, to ascertain the addresses of the Defendants. See, e.g., Meade v. Reynolds, 810 Fed.Appx. 86, 88 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“[T]he plaintiff must provide the district court with sufficient information to enable the Marshals Service to effectuate service of process.”) (citing Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993); Harris v. McMullen, 609 Fed.Appx. 704, 707 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“Harris has not pointed to any authority instructing that a District Court or the USMS must engage in extraordinary measures to assist an [in forma pauperis] litigant in locating a defendant's address for the purpose of service of process, and we are not aware of any.”).
e. Failure to include a proper address may result in the Defendant not being served and/or the dismissal of Coit's claims against any such Defendant.
7. Coit is cautioned that failure to return the completed USM-285 Form(s) in accordance with the above instructions may result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute without further notice from the Court.
8. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket any USM-285 Forms that Coit returns in this case.
9. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED not to issue summonses at this time. The Court will direct issuance of summonses upon receipt of properly completed USM-285 Forms.