London v. Brush-Strode

Opinion

IENA TSHTEE RUNN IDTIESTDR SITCATT OEFS ADRISKTARNICSTA SC OURT NORTHERN DIVISION

BARRY D. LONDON, PLAINTIFF ADC #088701

v. 3:21CV00197-DPM-JTK

BRUSH-STRODE, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Having reviewed Plaintiff Barry D. London’s Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint for screening purposes only,1 the Court finds that service is appropriate with respect to Plaintiff=s claims against Defendants Richard Shawn, Nathan West, M. Hall, Murray, Peterman, Shana D. Brink, and U. Roger. While service of Plaintiff’s claims on Defendants Brink and Roger is appropriate, the Court needs a valid address for service for these Defendants. Plaintiff is directed to provide the Court with a valid address for service within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not do so and Defendants Brink and Roger are not served in a timely manner, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Brink and Roger will be dismissed for lack of service. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m); Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). The Court notes service on other Defendants already has been ordered.2 Summons on Defendant Smith was returned unexecuted, and the Court was provided an address for service for

1The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1915A(a). 2 Doc. No. 15. The following Defendants have filed an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint:

Defendants Jeremy Glenn, Ernest Johnson, and Esther Mendez have filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, as amended, and provided their correct names (Doc. No. 32). The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the names of Defendants Glenn, Johnson, and Mendez on the docket to the names provided in their Answer (Doc. No. 32).

Defendants Dr. Marty Hearyman and Sandra Lake have filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Defendant Smith that will be maintained under seal. Service on Defendant Smith again will be ordered at the address provided. (Doc. Nos. 24, 33). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff must provide a valid address for service for Defendants Brink and Roger within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not do so and Defendants Brink and Roger are not served in a timely manner, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Brink and Roger will be dismissed for lack of service. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall prepare summons for Defendant Smith. The United States Marshal is hereby directed to serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) and summons on Defendant Smith without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service should be attempted at the address provided under seal (Doc. No. 24). 3. The Clerk of the Court shall prepare summonses for Defendants Shawn, West, Hall, Murray, and Peterman. The United States Marshal is hereby directed to serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) and summons on each of these Defendants without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service should be attempted through the Humphries, Odum & Eubanks law firm, 1901 Broadway Street, Little Rock, AR 72206. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2022.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

is directed to change the names of Defendants Hearyman and Lake on the docket to the names provided in their Answer (Doc. No. 37).