Hill v. WellPath Medical Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION ADAM HILL PLAINTIFF ADC #601559 V. NO. 4:24-cv-00284-JM-ERE WELLPATH MEDICAL CORPORATION, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pro se plaintiff Adam Hill, an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 2, 9. The Court previously determined that, for screening purposes,1 Mr. Hill has stated a medical deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Parsons, Seamster, Kent, Miles, Hoffman, Hurst, Griffin, WellPath, Dukes, Whitfield, Pitts, Wombley, Huff, Stringfello, Horan, Payne, Straughn, Culclager, and Anderson.2 Doc. 15. Although the Court has contacted counsel for the Medical Defendants in an attempt to serve Screening is mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

2 The Court previously dismissed Mr. Hills’s claims against Conley, Smith, Saih, Wyman, Culp, Reed, Billingsly, Hutchinson, and Rester. Doc. 15.

Defendants Kent, Miles, Whitfield, Dukes, Pitts, Wombley, Stringfello, and Anderson, the Court needs additional, identifying information to attempt service on these Defendants.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Within 30 days, Mr. Hill must provide the Court either full names, first names, or the first initial of the first names for Defendants Kent, Miles, Whitfield, Dukes, Pitts, Wombley, Stringfello, and Anderson 2. Mr. Hill’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order may result in the dismissal of his claims against these Defendants.

So Ordered 3 June 2024.

Mit 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE > Mr. Hill is reminded that he is responsible for providing sufficient identifying information and valid service addresses for each Defendant. Any Defendant who is not served within 90 days may be dismissed, without prejudice, from the lawsuit.