United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Raphael Mendez, pro se.
M. Secord, Assistant United States Attorney, United States
Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
August 25, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Raphael Mendez
(“Mendez”) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Amended Complaint [Docket No. 6], asserting claims against
employees of the Federal Medical Center in Rochester,
Minnesota. Mendez's claims stem from a July 25, 2016
email he wrote to his brother, which Defendant Officer T.
Dole viewed as threatening towards Mendez's workshop
supervisor. See Compl. [Docket No. 1] Ex. 1 at 2-3.
As a result, Mendez was confined in a special housing unit.
Mendez alleges that his seclusion in the special housing unit
was racially motivated and improper, and that his personal
property was stolen while he was confined.
Defendants were served with the Amended Complaint on December
14, 2016, with the exception of Defendant Officer J.
Petersen, who was unable to be served without a full first
name. On January 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson
ordered that Mendez must submit a new USM-285
bearing Officer J. Petersen's full name within 30 days or
Judge Thorson would recommend dismissal of claims against
Officer J. Petersen for failure to prosecute. See
Order [Docket No. 21]. Mendez's Objection [Docket No. 31]
to the January 9, 2017 Order was overruled, but Mendez was
nevertheless given until March 30, 2017 to provide the full
name of Defendant Officer J. Petersen. See Order
[Docket No. 34].
seeks to hold the March 30, 2017 deadline to fully name
Defendant Officer J. Petersen in abeyance [Docket No. 36]
pending his Petition for Interlocutory Appeal [Docket No.
37]. Mendez has also applied to proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 38].
1292(b) creates a narrow exception to the final judgment rule
and allows district courts to certify orders for
interlocutory appeal if certain criteria are satisfied and
the district court determines that certification is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see
also TCF Banking & Sav. F.A. v. Arthur Young
& Co., 697 F.Supp. 362, 366 (8th Cir. 1988). Section
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order
not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the
opinion that such order involves a controlling question of
law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It has long been the policy of the
courts to “discourage piece-meal appeals because most
often such appeals result in additional burdens on both the
court and the litigants. Permission to allow interlocutory
appeals should thus be granted sparingly and with
discrimination.” Union Cty, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray
& Co., Inc., 525 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 2008)
(quoting White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir.
case does not involve a controlling question of law as to
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.
It is the responsibility of pro se plaintiffs proceeding
in forma pauperis in a § 1983 action to provide
the full name and a valid service address for each defendant.
Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir.
1993). Litigants are commonly directed to provide the proper
identifying information for each defendant to be sued or
claims against those defendants will be dismissed for lack of
service. See, e.g., Krepps v. Ballwin, No.
09-074, 2009 WL 2710106, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 26, 2009);
Beck v. Nutakor, No. 04-686, 2008 WL 512706, at *3
(D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2008). Further, permitting this
interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the
ultimate termination of litigation.
the March 30, 2017 deadline passed while these Motions were
pending, the deadline to provide the full name of Defendant
Officer J. Petersen will be extended to June 16, 2017. If the
full name is not provided at that time, Officer J. Peterson
will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff
Raphael Mendez's Motion to Hold Extended Deadline in
Abeyance [Docket No. 36], Petition for Interlocutory Appeal
[Docket No. 37], and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
on Appeal [Docket No. 38] are DENIED.