From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Doyle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 5, 2016
No. 15-10090 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-10090

12-05-2016

JACK SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MR. DOYLE, ET AL., Defendants.


District Judge Robert H. Cleland

ORDER

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff Jack Smith, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), filed a pro se civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming a number of Defendants. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court ordered service by the United States Marshal. However, to date, Defendants T. Crawford and Mr. Doyle have not been served with summonses and complaints.

As is the usual practice, the Marshal sent waivers of service to the Defendants. As to Defendant Crawford, the documents were returned with the notations "Return to Sender" and "Unable to Forward." [Doc. #37]. As to Mr. Doyle, the Court directed the MDOC to provide his last known address to the Marshal for purposes of service. The MDOC replied that it was "unable to determine the identity of 'Mr Doyle', and therefore cannot provide an address for service." [Doc. #17].

"An inmate bringing a civil rights complaint must specifically identify each defendant against whom relief is sought, and must give each defendant notice of the action by serving upon him or her a summons and copy of the complaint." Herbert v. Roark, 2006 WL 1284695, *1 (E.D. Mich. 2006), citing Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F.Supp. 1033, 1048 (D.Mass.1994). Notwithstanding that Marshal's service is ordered, it is the prisoner-plaintiff's responsibility to properly identify a defendant in the complaint, and to provide a proper address for service. Id., citing Williams v. McLemore, 10 Fed. Appx. 241, 243 (6th Cir.2001) and Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir.1996). See also Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir.1993)(prison inmate bears the responsibility for providing defendants' proper addresses or Marshal's service).

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that no later than 30 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff will provide this Court with the correct identity and address of the individual he names as "Mr. Doyle" in his complaint, and the correct address for Defendant Crawford. Plaintiff's failure to provide this information will result in a recommendation to dismiss these Defendants.

s/R. Steven Whalen

R. STEVEN WHALEN

United States Magistrate Judge Dated: December 5, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on December 5, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager


Summaries of

Smith v. Doyle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 5, 2016
No. 15-10090 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2016)
Case details for

Smith v. Doyle

Case Details

Full title:JACK SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MR. DOYLE, ET AL., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 5, 2016

Citations

No. 15-10090 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2016)