Mays v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

E.D. Arkansas

Mays v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided February 3, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-00167·Unknown

Opinion

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

OTIS MAYS, PLAINTIFF Reg. # 21955-041

v. 2:22CV00167-KGB-JTK

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Otis Mays (“Plaintiff”) has filed an Amended Complaint against numerous officials at the Federal Correctional Institution at Forrest City, Arkansas. (Doc. No. 15). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for screening purposes,1 the Court concludes service of Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims on Defendants Amuimuia, Burton, Eason, McKane, and Lieutenant Doe is appropriate. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the name of Defendant Lieutenant Doe. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that any defendant who is not served within ninety (90) days after the filing of the Complaint is subject to dismissal without prejudice). If Defendant Lieutenant Doe is not served in a timely manner, the Court will recommend this Defendant be dismissed. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall prepare Summonses for Defendants Amuimuia, Burton, Eason, and McKane. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 15), Summons, and this Order on each of these

1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee, regardless of fee status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (§ 1915A’s screening requirement applies regardless of fee status). Defendants without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service shall be made through United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the United States Attorney General. Additionally, service on Defendants Amuimuia, Burton, Eason, and McKane should be attempted through the Federal Correctional Institution — Forrest City Low, Post Office Box 9000, Forrest City, Arkansas 72336. Dated this 3%! day of February, 2023.

JERO C T. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

OTIS MAYS, PLAINTIFF Reg. # 21955-041

v. 2:22CV00167-KGB-JTK

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Otis Mays (“Plaintiff”) has filed an Amended Complaint against numerous officials at the Federal Correctional Institution at Forrest City, Arkansas. (Doc. No. 15). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for screening purposes,1 the Court concludes service of Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims on Defendants Amuimuia, Burton, Eason, McKane, and Lieutenant Doe is appropriate. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the name of Defendant Lieutenant Doe. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that any defendant who is not served within ninety (90) days after the filing of the Complaint is subject to dismissal without prejudice). If Defendant Lieutenant Doe is not served in a timely manner, the Court will recommend this Defendant be dismissed. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall prepare Summonses for Defendants Amuimuia, Burton, Eason, and McKane. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 15), Summons, and this Order on each of these

1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee, regardless of fee status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (§ 1915A’s screening requirement applies regardless of fee status). Defendants without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service shall be made through United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the United States Attorney General. Additionally, service on Defendants Amuimuia, Burton, Eason, and McKane should be attempted through the Federal Correctional Institution — Forrest City Low, Post Office Box 9000, Forrest City, Arkansas 72336. Dated this 3%! day of February, 2023.

JERO C T. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Mays v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Mays v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Mays v. Federal Bureau of Prisons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related