UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Michael Jerome Harvey,                Case No. 24-cv-1173 (PJS/DJF)      

               Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                            ORDER                      

U.S. Bank, National Association et al.,                                  

              Defendants                                                 


    This matter is before the Court on Mr. Harvey’s self-styled “Demand Defendants to 
Compel Discovery & Respond to Interrogatories, Estoppel on Sherrif’s Sale Failure to Respond, 
Adverse Claim” (“Discovery Motion”) (ECF No. 7).  In his Discovery Motion, Mr. Harvey seeks 
to compel production of various documents and compel responses to interrogatories.  The motion, 
however, is premature.  Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from 
any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)….”  The Court has not yet 
directed the parties to hold a Rule 26(f) conference, nor have the parties asked the Court to set a 
deadline for or to hold a Rule 26(f) conference.  Indeed, there is no evidence in the docket that any 
Defendant, to date, has been properly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.  The Court accordingly 
DENIES Mr. Harvey’s Discovery Motion (ECF No. [7]) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.     
    The Court further notes that Mr. Harvey must file proof of service for each Defendant 
before this action can proceed.  He must serve a copy of the summons and complaint as required 
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) for Defendant Ginnie Mae, and as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) for the 
other Defendants.  Mr. Harvey must complete service on all Defendants within 90 days of April 
5, 2024, the date when Ginnie Mae removed this action to this Court, or by July 8, 2024.  See Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also, e.g., Lauritsen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4:22-cv-1073 (JMB), 

, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2022) (“In a removed case, the 90-day time for 
service is measured from the date of removal, not the date of filing of the state law case.”) (citing 
Taylor v. Clark Equip. Co., 

, at *6 (E.D. Mo. May 24, 2022)).  If Mr. Harvey 
fails to properly serve any Defendant by July 8, 2024, the Court may dismiss that Defendant from 

this matter without prejudice.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days 
after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 
specified time.”).                                                        
    The Court recognizes that Mr. Harvey is a pro se litigant who might have difficulty 
understanding the applicable rules.  The Court refers Mr. Harvey to the District Court’s Pro Se 
Civil  Guidebook,  https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/Pro-Se-Civil-Guidebook.pdf, 
and its resource page for pro se litigants, https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself, for 
information.                                                              
    SO ORDERED.                                                          

 Dated: May 8, 2024              s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                 Dulce J. Foster                         
                                 United States Magistrate Judge          

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Michael Jerome Harvey,                Case No. 24-cv-1173 (PJS/DJF)      

               Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                            ORDER                      

U.S. Bank, National Association et al.,                                  

              Defendants                                                 


    This matter is before the Court on Mr. Harvey’s self-styled “Demand Defendants to 
Compel Discovery & Respond to Interrogatories, Estoppel on Sherrif’s Sale Failure to Respond, 
Adverse Claim” (“Discovery Motion”) (ECF No. 7).  In his Discovery Motion, Mr. Harvey seeks 
to compel production of various documents and compel responses to interrogatories.  The motion, 
however, is premature.  Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from 
any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)….”  The Court has not yet 
directed the parties to hold a Rule 26(f) conference, nor have the parties asked the Court to set a 
deadline for or to hold a Rule 26(f) conference.  Indeed, there is no evidence in the docket that any 
Defendant, to date, has been properly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.  The Court accordingly 
DENIES Mr. Harvey’s Discovery Motion (ECF No. [7]) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.     
    The Court further notes that Mr. Harvey must file proof of service for each Defendant 
before this action can proceed.  He must serve a copy of the summons and complaint as required 
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) for Defendant Ginnie Mae, and as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) for the 
other Defendants.  Mr. Harvey must complete service on all Defendants within 90 days of April 
5, 2024, the date when Ginnie Mae removed this action to this Court, or by July 8, 2024.  See Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also, e.g., Lauritsen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4:22-cv-1073 (JMB), 

, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2022) (“In a removed case, the 90-day time for 
service is measured from the date of removal, not the date of filing of the state law case.”) (citing 
Taylor v. Clark Equip. Co., 

, at *6 (E.D. Mo. May 24, 2022)).  If Mr. Harvey 
fails to properly serve any Defendant by July 8, 2024, the Court may dismiss that Defendant from 

this matter without prejudice.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days 
after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 
specified time.”).                                                        
    The Court recognizes that Mr. Harvey is a pro se litigant who might have difficulty 
understanding the applicable rules.  The Court refers Mr. Harvey to the District Court’s Pro Se 
Civil  Guidebook,  https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/Pro-Se-Civil-Guidebook.pdf, 
and its resource page for pro se litigants, https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself, for 
information.                                                              
    SO ORDERED.                                                          

 Dated: May 8, 2024              s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                 Dulce J. Foster                         
                                 United States Magistrate Judge