Jones 701358 v. Strickland

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

MARTELL JONES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-1101

v. Honorable Jane M. Beckering

CHARLES STRICKLAND et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER LIFTING STAY AND FOR SERVICE This is a prisoner civil rights action. In an opinion and order (ECF Nos. 8, 9) entered on December 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and partially dismissed his complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court then referred the case to the Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation Early Mediation Program and entered an order staying the case for any purpose other than mediation. (ECF No. 10.) However, the case was removed from early mediation on January 15, 2025, because not all Defendants entered a limited appearance in the time provided to do so. (ECF No. 12.) Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the stay of this proceeding that was entered to facilitate the mediation is LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in its December 6, 2024, order, (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff is responsible for paying the entire $350.00 filing fee in installments, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled in other part by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013); Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff must pay the filing fee through monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Accordingly, each month that the amount in Plaintiff’s trust account exceeds $10.00, the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall collect 20 percent of the preceding months’ income and remit that amount to the

Clerk of this Court. The agency shall continue to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s prisoner account until the entire filing fee is paid. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 90-day period for service set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) shall run, starting with the date of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward the complaint to the U.S. Marshals Service, which is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants Strickland, Bennett, Rutgers, Eavey, Rinckey, Ugboma, and Henning1 in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). If waiver of service is unsuccessful, summons shall issue and be forwarded to the U.S. Marshals Service for service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each Defendant shall file an appearance of counsel (individual Defendants may appear pro se if they do not have counsel) within 21 days of service or, in the case of a waiver of service, 60 days after the waiver of service was sent. Until so ordered by the Court, no Defendant is required to file an answer or motion in response to the complaint,

1 Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to warrant service of the complaint against Defendants Unknown Parties #1 and #2. However, the Court is unable to order service on those Defendants because Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify them. While the United States Marshal Service is expected to make a reasonable effort to serve identified Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal Service is not required to identify the individuals to be served. See Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[W]hen a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis the court is obligated to issue plaintiff’s process to a United States Marshal who must in turn effectuate service upon the defendants . . . once reasonable steps have been taken to identify for the court the defendants named in the complaint.”) (emphasis added). and no default will be entered for failure to do so. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). After a Defendant has filed an appearance, the Court will enter a case management order to govern further proceedings in this case.

Dated: January 21, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent RAY KENT United States Magistrate Judge