Case 1 :06-mc-00044-S-LDA Document 12 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAN D

GORDON C. REID

v. MISC. No . 06-44S

WARREN F. DOWALIBY,

Superintendent, Strafford County

Department of Corrections, et als.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Gordon C. Reid, is a federal pretrial detainee placed at the Strafford County

Department of Corrections (the "SCDOC") in Dover, New Hampshire. On May 12, 2006, Plaintiff

filed a Complaint against several employees of the SCDOC and the U.S. Marshal for the District of

New Hampshire pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983 challenging his conditions of confinement and

claiming denial of access to law materials . He also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

("IFP") and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") . His IFP Motion was granted by

the District of New Hampshire and then this matter was transferred to the District of Rhode Island

because of the recusal of all of the New Hampshire Judges .' The case was assigned to District Judge

William Smith and, on May 25, 2006, he referred Plaintiff's Motion for TRO to this Court for

preliminary review, fmdings and recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR Cv 72(a).

Discussion

Plaintiff has requested an expedited hearing on his Motion for TRO because his criminal

prosecution is scheduled for trial on or about July 18, 2006? Plaintiff was indicted of one count of

Hobbs Act robbery on April 13, 2005 and has been detained on that charge since on or about Apri l

' It appears from the docket that the New Hampshire judges recused because ofthe presence of their District's

U.S. Marshal as a named defendant.

z Plaintiff's first criminal trial ended on February 22, 2006 as a mistrial .

Case 1:06-cv-00182-SM Document 26 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 1 :06-mc-00044-S-LDA Document 12 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 2 of 2

22, 2005 . See United States v. Reid, CR 05-57JD (D.N.H.). Plaintiff is rn o se in this case and pro

se with stand-by counsel in the criminal case .

It is unclear from the docket if Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for TRO have been served

on the Defendants. In his Motion for TRO, Plaintiff includes a certificate of service signed by him

which asserts that a copy of the Motion for TRO "was served on defendants, and each of them,

concomitant to service of the Complaint ." Plaintiff has not, however, filed proof of service of the

Complaint as required by Fed . R. Civ. P. 4(1).

Because Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee in the care, custody and control of the SCDOC, this

Court is hesitant to proceed on Plaintiff's Motion for TRO without assuring itself that the Defendants

have been properly served with Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for TRO, and given a reasonable

opportunity to respond. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1 . The U.S. Marshal for this District shall serve Defendants forthwith with a copy of

Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Temporary Retraining Order, and a copy of this

Memorandum and Order.

2. Within seven (7) days of receipt of this Order and the accompanying documents,

Defendants shall file a written response to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order.

3. Defendants shall have twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Order and the

accompanying documents to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to

Plaintiff's Complaint .

ENTER:

LINCOLN D. ALMOND

United States Magistrate Judge

June 2, 2006

PER ORDER:

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00182-SM Document 26 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2