Bryant v. Gomez
This text of Bryant v. Gomez (Bryant v. Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHAD ERIC BRYANT, Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:22-CV-12169 v. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
MIGUEL GOMEZ, ET AL., Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
Before the Court is Chad Eric Bryant’s pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff 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 him or her with a summons and a copy of the complaint. Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F. Supp. 1033, 1048 (D. Mass. 1994). When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, as is the case here, the district court is responsible for issuing the plaintiff’s papers to the United States Marshal who will serve all of the defendants who are properly identified in the complaint. Williams v. McLemore, 10 F. App’x. 241, 243 (6th Cir. 2001); Byrd v. Stone, 94 F. 3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). When a district court instructs the United States Marshal to serve papers on behalf of an in forma pauperis plaintiff, the plaintiff must furnish sufficient information to identify any named defendants. Sellers v. United States, 902 F. 2d 598, 602 (7th Cir. 1990). In this, Bryant has not completely identified all of the named defendants because he only identifies defendants J. Moltane, Brown, and K. Temple by their last names. Because Bryant has not sufficiently identified those defendants, the Court is unable to order the United States Marshal to effectuate service upon them. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Bryant to provide the full names of defendants J. Moltane, Brown, and K. Temple within 30 days of the filing date of this
order. If he fails to do so, those defendants shall be dismissed from the case.
s/David. R. Grand _ DAVID R. GRAND UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: October 4, 2022
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on this date.
___s/TThompson_____________________ Deputy Clerk Dated: October 4, 2022
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bryant v. Gomez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-gomez-mied-2022.