Sullivan v. Warden of Southern Desert Correctional Center

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KEITH W. SULLIVAN, 4 Case No. 2:23-cv-01203-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 5 Order v. 6 [Docket No. 47] WARDEN OF SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to identify unserved defendant.! Docket No. 10} 47. 1] On June 18, 2025, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to 12] proceed in forma pauperis and requiring service to be perfected no later than September 16, 2025. 13}, Docket No. 45. Further, the Court instructed that “[i]f service cannot be accepted for any of the 14] named defendant(s), Plaintiff shall file a motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting 15] issuance of a summons, and specifying a full name and address for the defendant(s).” /d. at 2. On July 8, 2025, Defendants notified the Court that “service [was] not accepted on behalf of Defendant 17} Stacy” as “[u]ndersigned counsel was unable to identify this Defendant based upon the allegations 18] contained in the Amended Complaint.” Docket No. 46 at 2. On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed the 19} instant motion requesting the Court to issue a summons as to “Nurse Stacy Perkins.” Docket No. 20] 47 at 2. On August 18, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of acceptance of service as to Defendant 21] Stacy Perkins. Docket No. 51. 22 Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as moot. Docket No. 47. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 29, 2025

Nancy J. Kopp&\. 26 United StatesMagistrate Judge 27), ————_____ ' The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are 28] prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).