Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-0069
04-13-2022
LONNIE SPELLMAN, Plaintiff v. JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants
ORDER
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to compel proper service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5 and not through Smart Communications, which e claims he never consented to, (Doc. 13), IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
Department of Corrections (“DOC”)'s policy DC-ADM 803 provides, however, that “[a]ll incoming, non-privileged inmate correspondence must be addressed and sent to the Department's contracted central incoming inmate ail processing center, ” which is the Smart Communications center located n St. Petersburg, Florida. Privileged mail may be sent directly to the inmate t the institution where he is housed. Incoming privileged mail includes, inter lia, mail from a court as well as “[m]ail from an inmate's attorney that is either hand-delivered to the facility by the attorney or delivered through the ail system and identified with a control number issued to the sender by the Department's Office of Chief Counsel.” In the instant case, counsel for Defendants is not representing Plaintiff; therefore, any mail sent by counsel o Plaintiff is not considered to be privileged mail and must be sent to Plaintiff ia Smart Communications. If service is delayed and a deadline is pending, Plaintiff is free to seek an enlargement of time from the Court.