Stewart v. Smith

W.D. Arkansas

Stewart v. Smith

DecidedJanuary 11, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-04105

StatusUnknown

This text of Stewart v. Smith (Stewart v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stewart v. Smith, (W.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

PAUL ALLEN STEWART PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:23-CV-04105-SOH-CDC

CAPTAIN TRACEY SMITH, Little River County Detention Center (LRCDC); JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GINA BUTLER, LRCDC; SHERIFF BOBBY WALRAVEN, Little River County, Arkansas; and JAILER MIKE BATEMAN, LRCDC, DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Paul Allen Stewart, a prisoner, initiated the above-captioned civil rights action in this District on October 31, 2023. (ECF No. 1). He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). On November 2, 2023, after preservice review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), this Court ordered that the Defendants be served with the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by certified mail, return receipt requested at the addresses provided by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 6). Service was returned executed on Defendants Smith and Walraven on November 16, 2023, and on Defendant Butler on November 21, 2023. See (ECF Nos. 8-9). When service was returned unexecuted on Defendant Bateman, see (ECF No. 11), this Court ordered Defendants Smith, Butler, and Walraven to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to provide the Court with Defendant Bateman’s last known address, see (ECF No. 12). Upon receipt of the Defendants’ show cause response, this Court ordered Defendant Bateman to be served with the Complaint at the address that had been provided under seal. (ECF No. 14). Service at that address has since been returned, unexecuted, with no forwarding address. (ECF No. 16). Although Plaintiff proceeds IFP, he is nevertheless responsible for providing proper addresses for service. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to provide a service address for Defendant Bateman within 28

days of the date of this order, or by FEBRUARY 8, 2024, failing which Defendant Bateman may be dismissed from this action for lack of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2024. /s/ Christy Comstock CHRISTY COMSTOCK 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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

PAUL ALLEN STEWART PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:23-CV-04105-SOH-CDC

CAPTAIN TRACEY SMITH, Little River County Detention Center (LRCDC); JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GINA BUTLER, LRCDC; SHERIFF BOBBY WALRAVEN, Little River County, Arkansas; and JAILER MIKE BATEMAN, LRCDC, DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Paul Allen Stewart, a prisoner, initiated the above-captioned civil rights action in this District on October 31, 2023. (ECF No. 1). He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). On November 2, 2023, after preservice review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), this Court ordered that the Defendants be served with the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by certified mail, return receipt requested at the addresses provided by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 6). Service was returned executed on Defendants Smith and Walraven on November 16, 2023, and on Defendant Butler on November 21, 2023. See (ECF Nos. 8-9). When service was returned unexecuted on Defendant Bateman, see (ECF No. 11), this Court ordered Defendants Smith, Butler, and Walraven to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to provide the Court with Defendant Bateman’s last known address, see (ECF No. 12). Upon receipt of the Defendants’ show cause response, this Court ordered Defendant Bateman to be served with the Complaint at the address that had been provided under seal. (ECF No. 14). Service at that address has since been returned, unexecuted, with no forwarding address. (ECF No. 16). Although Plaintiff proceeds IFP, he is nevertheless responsible for providing proper addresses for service. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to provide a service address for Defendant Bateman within 28

days of the date of this order, or by FEBRUARY 8, 2024, failing which Defendant Bateman may be dismissed from this action for lack of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2024. /s/ Christy Comstock CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stewart v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-smith-arwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack