Wills v. McKinley et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HENRY WILLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA MCKINLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-10888
Honorable Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER FOR THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE TO USE REASONABLE
EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANTS MCKINLEY AND BRYANT
Plaintiff Henry Wills, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, sues Defendants Joshua McKinley, Spencer Gibson, and James
Bryant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 9. The Honorable Linda V.
Parker referred the case to this Court for all pretrial matters under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 10.
In May 2025, the Court ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to serve the
amended complaint on defendants, ECF No. 8, but no proof of service has
been filed for McKinley and Bryant. Thus, in August 2025, the Court
ordered the Marshal Service to serve McKinley and Bryant by September
Case 2:25-cv-10888-LVP-EAS ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 4

2
22, 2025. ECF No. 19, PageID.63. But McKinley and Bryant still have not
yet been served.
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, “[t]he officers of the
court shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Thus, the
Marshal Service has a duty to make reasonable efforts to serve
defendants. 	VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 939-41 (E.D. Mich.
2004); see also Spencer v. Bynum, No. 2:13-13056, 2013 WL 4041870, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2013). And in prisoner cases, the Marshal Service is
tasked with using reasonable efforts to locate the defendants because of
(1) the security risks inherent in providing prisoners with the addresses of
government officials, and (2) the difficultly that prisoners have in accessing
information through the government. 	VanDiver, 304 F. Supp. at 939.
The Marshal Service must use reasonable efforts to locate and
personally serve defendants McKinley and Bryant by December 18, 2025.
See Johnson v. Herren, No. 2:13-cv-583, 2013 WL6410447, at *2-4 (S.D.
Ohio Dec. 9, 2013) (ordering the Marshals Service to take reasonable
steps to locate defendant’s address through an internet search and by
consulting with defendant’s former employer); Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, No.
06-CV-10934, 2013 WL 1183301, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2013)
(Marshals Service was ordered to personally serve defendants after a
Case 2:25-cv-10888-LVP-EAS ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 4

3
fourth waiver request was returned unexecuted). The Marshal Service
must inform the Court of the results of its attempt to personally serve
McKinley and Bryant. 	See Neal v. City of Detroit Police Dep’t, No. 17-
13170, 2018 WL 8608298, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2018).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 28, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
Case 2:25-cv-10888-LVP-EAS ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 4

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 28, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-10888-LVP-EAS ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 4