Gene Vontell Graham and Sidney Wilson v. Gene Satkoski, Charlie Wright

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that once a defendant former prison employee is properly identified, “the Marshals Service should be able to ascertain the individual’s current address and, on the basis of that information, complete service”
• concluding that delay attributable to Marshals Service constituted good cause
• stating that, “[if] the Marshals Service could have obtained the new addresses of the defendants with reasonable efforts,” then “the marshals’ failure to serve process [i]s ‘good cause’ for purposes of Rule 4(m)”
• explaining that IFP plaintiff “may rely on the Marshals Service to serve process”
• remanding for evaluation by the district court, stating that the district court’s failure to “question the marshals’ efforts” and its dismissal of defendants not served by the marshals could not be reconciled with Sellers
• noting that, while a “prison may be justifiably reluctant to provide employee addresses to a prisoner or ex-prisoner due to security concerns, it hardly can claim the same reluctance in providing the information to a federal law enforcement agency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).