From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joekel v. Vannoy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Apr 15, 2021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-00453-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 15, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-00453-BAJ-RLB

04-15-2021

KYLE DAVID JOEKEL v. DARRELL VANNOY, ET AL.


RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), recommending that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the Plaintiff to serve Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 4(m). The Recommendation is Opposed. (Doc. 5).

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on or about July 13, 2020. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, attempted to effectuate service by mail on or about October 13, 2020. (Doc. 2). On December 4, 2020, the Court informed Plaintiff that his prior attempt to serve Defendants by mail did not comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants within the time allowed by Rule 4. (Doc. 3). In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that "Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's show cause order or taken any other action to accomplish service," and recommended his claims should be dismissed. (Doc. 4, p. 2).

Plaintiff argues in his objection that he did, in fact, respond to the Court's show cause order and requested service by the United States Marshals Service. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit A to his opposition, a memorandum entitled "Response to Dec. 4th, 2020 Order to Show Cause," which is dated December 7, 2020, and appears to have been scanned by officials at the Louisiana State Penitentiary on December 8, 2020. (Doc. 5-1). In the response, Plaintiff explicitly asks for an extension of time to effectuate service, due to his confusion about the legal process, and also asks the Court to order the United States Marshals Service to serve the Defendants. (Id.)

Given that the record reveals that the Plaintiff has responded to the Court's order to show cause,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is now rendered MOOT.

IS IT FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service shall serve Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) upon Warden Darrell Vannoy, Warden Tim Delaney, Warden Joseph La Martinare, and Secretary James LeBlanc.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 15th day of April, 2021

/s/ _________

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


Summaries of

Joekel v. Vannoy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Apr 15, 2021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-00453-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Joekel v. Vannoy

Case Details

Full title:KYLE DAVID JOEKEL v. DARRELL VANNOY, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Apr 15, 2021

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-00453-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 15, 2021)