Lungaho v. Franks

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

MUJERA BENJAMIN LUNG’AHO PLAINTIFF Reg. # 08572-509

v. 3:23CV00257-DPM-JTK

STEVEN FRANKS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Upon screening Mujera Benjamin Lungaho’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 20) pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act,1 the Court directed service of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Weston Lancaster, among others. (Doc. No. 21). After one failed attempt at service, the Court directed service on Defendant Lancaster at a last known address provided to the Court under seal. Summons on Defendant Lancaster was returned unexecuted with only the notation “return to sender.” (Doc. No. 75). The Court will attempt service once more. The Court notes that it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide a service address for Defendant Lancaster. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) (any defendant not served within ninety (90) days after the filing of the Complaint is subject to dismissal without prejudice). If Defendant Lancaster is not served within 30 days, the Court will recommend Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lancaster be dismissed without prejudice. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to prepare Summons for Defendant Weston Lancaster. The United States Marshal is directed to personally serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 20), Summons, and this Order on Defendant Lancaster without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service should be attempted at the addresses maintained under seal (Doc. No. 54). Dated this 3°! day of December, 2024.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE