Portier v. Shoemaker

Full title: KENNETH W. PORTIER, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT SHOEMAKER (FCF), CAPTAIN…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Aug 4, 2006

Civil Action No. 05-cv-00634-WDM-PAC (D. Colo. Aug. 4, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-00634-WDM-PAC.

August 4, 2006

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDRESS

PATRICIA COAN, Magistrate Judge

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action naming three defendants: Sergeant Shoemaker, Captain Bauer, and Sergeant Keleman. On June 29, 2005, this matter was referred this matter to me for pretrial case management. Only Shoemaker has been served. On June 7, 2006, counsel for Shoemaker filed the last known address of Barnett Bauer under seal. The Marshal filed his unexecuted return of service under seal on August 1, 2006, indicating that Bauer no longer lives at the address at which service was attempted.¹

1 Service on Bauer had been unsuccessfully attempted at another address. See Unexecuted Summons filed August 26, 2005 [doc. 24].

When a district court allows a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, service of process is effected by an officer of the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Even though plaintiff is a pro se litigant, he is required to follow the same rules of procedure governing other litigants. Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10^th Cir. 1992). The responsibility to provide the U.S. Marshal with accurate information to effectuate service on defendant lies with the plaintiff. See Caldwell v. Martin, 104 F.3d 367 (table) 1996 WL 731253, at *1 (10^th Cir. Dec. 20, 1996) (affirming dismissal of defendant, rejecting argument that because inmate was proceeding in forma pauperis, it was responsibility of Marshal to locate and serve defendants); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F. 3d 1415, 1421-22 (9^th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient information to serve official).

Although the court can and does have the Marshal serve process on defendants routinely in in forma pauperis cases, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide a name and address for each defendant to be served. Plaintiff has not submitted an address at which defendant Bauer can be served. It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff shall provide a last known address for defendant Bauer, if he has one, on or before September 5, 2006. Failure to demonstrate good clause for plaintiff's failure to provide an address will result in a recommendation that plaintiff's claim against Bauer be dismissed.