Valenzuela v. Bell

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Mexico
DecidedMay 2, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-00746
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Valenzuela v. Bell, (D.N.M. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

GABRIEL J. VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 1:21-746 RB/KRS

MARK BELL, Detention Officer, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of the record. Plaintiff is incarcerated, pro se, and proceeding in forma pauperis. He brings claims against Socorro County Detention Center Officer Mark Bell for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On December 16, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Socorro County Detention Center and found that Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Bell survived initial review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1915(e). (Doc. 15). The Court directed the Clerk’s Office to issue notice and waiver-of-service forms to two addresses available online for Socorro County Detention Center officers. Id. The mail to both of those addresses was returned as undeliverable. See (Docs. 16 and 17). It appears that Officer Bell may no longer be employed at Socorro County Detention Center, and a forwarding address has not been provided to the Court. “[T]he onus [is] squarely on plaintiffs to track down the whereabouts of defendants to effectuate service—rather than obliging the courts to assist in this endeavor—even when plaintiffs are in prison.” Washington v. Correia, 546 Fed. Appx. 786, 789 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished). Therefore, Plaintiff will be required to provide a current address for serving process on Defendant Bell. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Bell without further notice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that by May 23, 2022 Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause providing a valid, current address for serving process on Defendant Bell, or show cause why his claims against this Defendant should not be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

KEVIN R. SWEAZEA UNITED STAGES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Related

Washington v. Correia
546 F. App'x 786 (Tenth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Valenzuela v. Bell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valenzuela-v-bell-nmd-2022.