Pryor v. Peppers

Aug 31, 2026
3:25-cv-00436

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are again several motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Nc Lafonse Pryor. (Docs. 57, 73, 74).

First, the Court denies Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike / For Contempt (Doc. 57), for the same reasons the Court denied Plaintiff‘s other similar Motions. See Doc. 64.

Second, the Court previously granted Plaintiff leave for additional time to serve Defendants identified in his Amended Complaint. See id. at 2. Plaintiff attempted serving Defendants Lt. Ellis and Dr. Del a Cruz at Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI“). See Docs. 71, 72. Service for both Defendants was accepted in error by mail room staff at TCI. See Docs. 71, 72 (stating that each “is no longer employed by” TCI). As a result, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants Lt. Ellis and Dr. Del a Cruz (Doc. 73), as well as a Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 74) of these Defendants. For good cause shown, and consistent with its prior practice, the Court grants Plaintiff‘s Motions and orders Interested Party State of Ohio, to file under seal, the last known addresses for Lieutenant Ellis and Dr. Del a Cruz on or before September 11, 2026. See, e.g., Easley v. Anderson, No. 22-1397 (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 26); Allen v. Siddiqui, 2008 WL 2217363, at *2 (W.D. Ky.).1 Upon receipt, the Court will direct the United States Marshals Service to attempt service on Ellis and Del A Cruz again at the address provided.

Finally, the Court acknowledges that Defendants Cunningham, Hilton, Miller, Peppers, and Weirich have filed a Second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 75). This Motion is fully briefed and decisional. See Docs. 76, 77. It will be resolved in due course.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike / For Contempt (Doc. 57) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants Ellis and Del a Cruz (Doc. 73) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Motion for Alternative Service (Doc. 74), be and the same hereby is, GRANTED as set forth herein.

s/ James R. Knepp II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 31, 2026

Notes

1
1. In Byrd v. Stone, the Sixth Circuit stated that the Federal Civil Rules and the IFP statute “[t]ogether . . . stand for the proposition that when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis the court is obligated to issue plaintiff‘s process to a United States Marshal who must in turn effectuate service upon the defendants, thereby relieving a plaintiff of the burden to serve process once reasonable steps have been taken to identify for the court the defendants named in the complaint.” 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996). Because it appears that Ellis and Del a Cruz were employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“) at the time of the events described in the Amended Complaint, and because the State of Ohio has appeared as an Interested Party in this case, the Court finds this procedure appropriate and in the interest of efficiency.