Zarate v. Pruitt ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 STEPHEN ZARATE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01449-APG-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 20] 11 PRUITT, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Service has not been completed on the Defendants against whom Plaintiff’s complaint 14 survived screening. On November 22, 2023, summonses were returned unexecuted with notations 15 that the subject defendants no longer work at the address provided. Docket No. 19. On December 16 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request asking for service to be completed by using addresses from tax 17 documents that he appears to believe are accessible by the Court (or the United States Marshals 18 Service). Docket No. 20. 19 As an initial matter, the Clerk’s Office has issued a notice that the latest filing fails to 20 comply with the governing rules that requests for relief be properly fashioned as a motion and 21 comply with the formatting of a motion. Docket No. 20. The Court will exercise its discretion to 22 consider the instant request notwithstanding these technical defects. Nonetheless, Plaintiff must 23 ensure that he complies with all governing rules moving forward. 24 Turning to the substance of the request, Plaintiff has effectively asked the Court and the 25 Marshal to act as his investigators to find addresses for the subject defendants by somehow 26 accessing their tax records. Docket No. 20 at 3. This the Court cannot do. The Court has 27 elsewhere outlined the procedures and responsibilities attendant to effectuating service in a 28 prisoner civil rights case in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis: In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, service on the defendant may be effectuated by the United States Marshal. 2 Nonetheless, it is ultimately the plaintiffs responsibility to obtain an address at which the defendant may be served by the Marshal. 3 Moreover, when the Marshal is not able to effectuate service based on the information provided, the plaintiff must seek further relief to 4 remedy that situation. While the Court has a duty to construe the filings of a pro se litigant liberally, it does not act as his attorney and 5 cannot make decisions on his behalf regarding how his case should proceed. [I]t is [the plaintiffs] responsibility once the initial service 6 attempt proved unsuccessful to file a motion identifying the unserved Defendant(s) and specifying a more detailed name and/or 7 address for said Defendant(s), or whether some other manner of g service should be attempted. 9| Gibbs v. Fey, 2017 WL 8131473, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2017) (internal citations and quotations 10] omitted), adopted, 2018 WL 1157544 (D. Nev. Mar. 2, 2018). The same framework for service 11] applies in this case: “If Zarate wishes to have service again attempted on an unserved defendant, 12] then a motion must be filed with the court identifying the unserved defendant(s) and specifying a 13] more detailed name and/or address for said defendants, or whether some other manner of service 14] should be attempted.” Docket No. 10 at 9. 15 In short, if Plaintiff seeks further service attempts on any of the remaining Defendants at a 16] new address, then Plaintiff must provide that new address. The request asking the Court (or the Marshal) to find new addresses by investigating tax records is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: December 7, 2023 em + a 20 4. AS Nancy J..Ko PDE 21 United State Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28