Jackson v. C/O Aki

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01950
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 Tarontae Jackson, Case No. 2:24-cv-01950-GMN-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 14]

10 Officer Aki, 11 Defendant(s). 12 This is a prisoner civil rights case in which Plaintiff is proceeding on an excessive force 13 claim against a correctional officer at the Clark County Detention Center. See Docket No. 6 14 (screening order). Defendant has not agreed to waive service. On July 17, 2025, the Court ordered 15 Plaintiff to furnish the United States Marshals Service with a USM-285 form so that service could 16 be attempted on Defendant. Docket No. 11. Plaintiff did not comply, so the summons was 17 returned as unexecuted. Docket No. 13 at 2. 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion re: summons. Docket No. 14.1 Plaintiff 19 argues that the Marshal must complete all paperwork necessary to effectuate service, as opposed 20 to Plaintiff. See id. at 1. The Court is not persuaded. “[A] prisoner ‘is entitled to rely on the U.S. 21 Marshal for service’ . . . as long as he or she ‘provide[s] the necessary information to help effectuate 22 service.’” Schrubb v. Lopez, 617 Fed. Appx. 832, 832 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 23 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 24 (1995)). “Ultimately, . . . it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to effectuate service by providing 25 Defendant[’s] proper address to the Marshal Service.” Bivins v. Ryan, Case No. CV-12-1097- 26 PHX-ROS (LOA), 2013 WL 2004462, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2013); see also, e.g., Gibbs v. Fey, 27 28 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). 1}, Case No. 2:15-cv-01958-GMN-NJK, 2017 WL 8131473, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2017), objections overruled, 2018 WL 1157544 (D. Nev. Mar. 2, 2018), recon. denied, 2019 WL 13249692 (D. Nev. 3} Mar. 15, 2019). It is likewise Plaintiffs responsibility to furnish the required USM-285 form to the Marshal. See, e.g., Hamer v. Nev. Dept. of Emp., Rehab. & Training, Vocational Rehab. 5|| Bureau, Case No. 2:15-cv-01036-GMN-GWF, 2018 WL 6003844, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2018), 6|| appeal dismissed, 2019 WL 6606513 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2019). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The Court further ORDERS as follows: 8 1. The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of the summons (Docket No. 12) and complaint 9 (Docket No. 7) to the U.S. Marshal for service. 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the required Form USM-285. 11 3. Plaintiff shall have twenty days in which to furnish the U.S. Marshal with the required 12 Form USM-285. Within twenty days after receiving from the U.S. Marshal a copy of 13 the Form USM-285, showing whether service has been accomplished, Plaintiff must 14 file a notice with the court identifying whether defendant was served. If Plaintiff 15 wishes to have service again attempted on an unserved defendant, a motion must be 16 filed with the Court identifying the unserved defendant and specifying a more detailed 17 name and/or address for said defendant, or whether some other manner of service 18 should be attempted. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 25, 2025

Nancy J. op pe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28