Zarate v. Pruitt ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6| STEPHEN ZARATE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01449-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8] Vv. [Docket No. 34] 91 IVANA ARAMARK, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendant Ivana Aramark at a new address. Docket No. 34. The motion identifies this new address as 850 Las Vegas Blvd N., Las Vegas, NV 89101. Jd. at 1. This is not a new address, however, but the same address at which the 14] prior service attempt was unsuccessful. See Docket No. 31. The Deputy Marshal indicated already 15] that this address “is incorrect. Address is open lot/ Baseball field.” /d. at 1. There is no point in 16] authorizing additional service at an incorrect address. The motion for service is DENIED. 17 In addition to the above, the Court notes a contemporaneous filing by Plaintiff asking the 18] Court to intervene and assist him in finding addresses for the unserved Defendants. Docket No. 19] 33. While courts construe the filings of unrepresented litigants liberally, they “have no obligation 20] to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). The 21} Court will not research or locate addresses on Plaintiff's behalf at which to attempt service, as “it is ultimately the plaintiff’ s responsibility to obtain an address at which the defendant may be served by the Marshal.” Gibbs v. Fey, 2017 WL 8131473, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2017) (citing Bivins 24] v. Ryan, 2013 WL 2004462, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2013)). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: April 10, 2024 □ \ Nancy J. Kenpe \ 28 United States Magistrate Judge