Opinion
23-cv-3867
08-07-2024
KELVIN DANIELS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. MARLEIHIA HARPER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Kelvin Daniels and Danee Slaton's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) it is ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to ADD the following Defendants to the docket to reflect the Amended Complaint: Sergeant Woltemate Joseph; Robert Clark; Dr. Norrell Atkins; Laurie Jubilier Esq; Donald Chisholm, III; Asheeki Desai; Dr. Worrell K. Atkinson; Dr. Tangerine; Bridget Warner; Vanderveen Harthorn & Levin; Shawn Jackson; Judge Zachary Shaffer; and Judge Giovanni O. Campbell.
2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as follows:
a. Daniels' Sixth Amendment claim, and Plaintiffs' due process claims based on the non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a new case only in the event their underlying convictions are reversed, vacated, or otherwise invalidated.
b. Slaton's First Amendment Free Exercise Claim passes statutory screening.
c. The remainder of the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Kelvin Daniels as a Plaintiff and TERMINATE all Defendants, with the exception of Steve Bezich and Robert Clark, because Daniels does not have any claims remaining in this case and only Clark and Bezich remain as Defendants. The only claim that remains in this case is Slaton's Free Exercise claim against Clark and Bezich based on the pat-down search.
4. 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. Steve Bezich
b. Robert Clark
5. In anticipation of service by the U.S. Marshal Service, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Slaton 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 four (4) 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-285 process-receipt.pdf.
6. To proceed with service, Slaton must complete a USM-285 Form for each Defendant listed in paragraph four (4) and return the completed forms 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 Slaton completes and returns these forms.
7. In completing the USM-285 Forms, Slaton is instructed as follows:
a. Slaton should complete a separate USM-285 Form for each Defendant listed in paragraph four (4) of this Order. Only one Defendant's name should appear on each USM-285 Form.
b. Slaton shall not complete a USM-285 Form for any individual or entity that is not listed as a Defendant in paragraph four (4) of this Order, including but not limited to any Defendant who already has been dismissed from this case.
c. Slaton 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. Slaton 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 Slaton'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 Slaton's claims against any such Defendant.
8. Slaton is cautioned that failure to return the completed USM-285 Forms in accordance with the above instructions may result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute without further notice from the Court.
9. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket any USM-285 Forms that Slaton returns in this case.
10. 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.