Smith v. Stewart ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 EDDIE LOUIS SMITH, III, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05096-BHS-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. DIRECT SERVICE AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 13 BELINDA D. STEWART, et al., CAUSE 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to direct personal service on 17 defendant Joby Taylor. Dkt. 62, at 1. 18 The Court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter and 19 directed service of the complaint by e-mail on the named defendants, including defendant 20 Taylor. See Dkt. 6. However, defendant Taylor did not return a waiver of service of the 21 summons, so that the Court ordered Taylor to show cause why he or she should not be personally 22 served at his or her own expense. See Dkt. 35. Defendant Taylor again failed to respond, so the 23 Court ordered defendants to provide a last known address for Taylor under seal. See Dkt. 45. 24 1 The Court then directed service by mail on the address provided by defendants. See Dkt. 48. 2 When service by mail upon the last known address for Taylor was unavailing, the Court ordered 3 personal service by the U.S. Marshal. See Dkt. 55. Despite these efforts, service was 4 unsuccessful, and the docket reflects that Taylor did not reside at the last known address, having 5 “reportedly joined the Army & [is] stationed in [Georgia].” Dkt. 56, at 1. 6 Thus, despite reasonable efforts, the Court has been unable to effectuate service upon 7 defendant Taylor. Although plaintiff is pro se and in forma pauperis, it remains plaintiff’s 8 burden to provide sufficient information that the Court can effectuate service. See Walker v. 9 Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (“So long as the prisoner has furnished the 10 information necessary to identify the defendant,” the marshals’ failure to serve is good cause to 11 excuse failure to timely serve the complaint), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 12 515 U.S. 472, 483–84 (1995). The Court will not undertake to investigate the address of 13 defendant Taylor for plaintiff. See Martin v. Serrell, No. 4:03-CV-3130, 2006 WL 488718, at *1 14 (D. Neb. Feb. 27, 2006) (“[T]he court cannot become an advocate for, or agent of, either side of 15 a case, and a result, tracing defendants who have left their former governmental employment 16 must be left to the devices of a plaintiff[.]”). 17 Therefore, the Court orders plaintiff to provide an updated address for defendant Taylor 18 on or before January 31, 2020. If plaintiff is unable to do so, the Court will recommend 19 dismissal of the claims against defendant Taylor without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 20 Plaintiff’s motion to direct service (Dkt. 62) is denied. 21 Dated this 30th day of December, 2019. A 22 J. Richard Creatura 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24