Opinion
19-11654
10-21-2021
ROBERT K. DECKER Plaintiff, v. LILITA INFANTE, et al ., Defendants.
Stephanie Dawkins Davis United States District Judge.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Robert Decker filed this Bivens action on June 5, 2019, without the assistance of counsel and proceeding in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). The United States Marshals Service undertook service of process. Summonses for each defendant, including Stephen Popp and Lilita Infante, were issued on April 28, 2021. (ECF No. 37). On August 9, 2021, the summons directed to Defendant Popp was returned unexecuted with a notation indicating the United States Postal Service was unable to forward the mailing to the identified recipient and the mailing should be returned to the sender. (ECF No. 56). Defendant Infante's summons was returned on the same day with a similar notation indicating the mailing be returned to the sender. (ECF No. 57). To date neither defendants Popp nor Infante have appeared or filed responsive pleadings. The matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. (ECF No. 10).
As discussed above, a review of the docket indicates no appearances or responsive pleadings have been filed as to defendants Popp and Infante. However, their unexecuted summons have been returned with a notation indicating the United States Postal Service was unable to deliver the mailings at the address provided by Plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file, on or before November 18, 2021, a response to this Order providing an address where service may be effectuated against defendants Popp and Infante.
Plaintiff is cautioned that if the Marshal is unable to effectuate service on defendants Popp and Infante with the information provided, the onus will remain on Plaintiff to discover and submit sufficient information for service of the previously named defendants. If that event were to arise, Plaintiff may be required to show good cause why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, as against defendants Popp and Infante if they remain unserved after the expiration of the summons.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Review of this Order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local Rule 72.1.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on October 21, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.