Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00303/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00303-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

JONATHAN MORRIS PLAINTIFF 

ADC #150394 

V. Case No. 4:23-CV-00303-JM-BBM 

BASS, Sergeant DEFENDANT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to 

United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections to all or 

part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain 

the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this 

Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file 

objections, Judge Moody may adopt this Recommendation without independently 

reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to 

appeal questions of fact. 

I. DISCUSSION 

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Jonathan Morris (“Morris”), a prisoner incarcerated in 

the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were 

violated. (Doc. 2). He subsequently filed an Amended and Substituted Complaint, which 

is considered the operative complaint in this action. (Doc. 9). On December 28, 2023, Judge 

Moody accepted this Court’s Recommendation that Morris be allowed to proceed with a 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 26 Filed 10/31/24 Page 1 of 3
2 

failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant Smith and an excessive force claim against 

Sergeant Bass, in their individual capacities only. (Docs. 11, 12). All other claims and 

defendants were dismissed, and service was deemed to be appropriate. (Docs. 12, 13). 

The Court directed the United States Marshal to serve the summonses, Amended 

and Substituted Complaint (Doc. 9), and Order directing service on Defendants Smith and 

Bass through the ADC Compliance Division. (Doc. 13). The summons issued for 

Defendant Bass was originally docketed as “executed.” (Doc. 14). But the ADC 

Compliance Division later sent a corrected memorandum, stating that Bass no longer 

worked at the ADC. (Doc. 14). Thus, the summons was re-docketed as “unexecuted,” and 

the ADC Compliance Office provided Bass’s last-known address under seal. (Doc. 17). 

Service was attempted at that address via certified mail and personal service. (Docs. 18, 

20–21). Both were returned unexecuted, and it was noted that Bass no longer lived at the 

provided address. (Docs. 20, 22). 

The Court instructed Morris that he has the burden to provide the information 

necessary to serve the Defendants and ordered him to file a Motion for Service containing 

the information necessary to properly identify Bass. (Doc. 24 at 1–2) (citing Lee v. 

Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993)). Morris was cautioned that failure to file a 

Motion for Service by September 23, 2024, would lead to his claim against Bass being 

dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 24 at 1) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m)). 

Morris has not complied with this Court’s Order, and the time to do so has passed. 

Therefore, it is recommended that Morris’s claim against Bass be dismissed without 

prejudice due to a lack of service. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) (stating a court may dismiss a 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 26 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 3
3 

defendant who has not been served within ninety days of the filing of the complaint); Lee, 

991 F.2d at 489 (holding it is a pro se plaintiff’s responsibility to provide a valid service 

address for each defendant); Coleman v. Newton, 334 F. App’x 52, 53 (8th Cir. 2009) 

(affirming dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 complaint without prejudice after he failed to 

provide the information needed to serve defendants). 

II. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Morris’s claim against Defendant Bass be DISMISSED without prejudice 

due to a lack of service. 

2. Judgment be entered accordingly.1

3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal from any order adopting this Recommendation or accompanying judgment 

would not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 31st day of October, 2024. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

1

 Morris’s claim against Defendant Smith was previously dismissed without prejudice for 

lack of service. (Doc. 24). 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 26 Filed 10/31/24 Page 3 of 3