United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
March 2, 2015, Plaintiff Michael Wayne Arnold, pro
se, filed a civil rights Complaint (ECF No. 1) against
A.T. Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections, Prison Guard Gass, Warden Jankowski, Inspector
Wells, “John Doe in Army Pants, ” “John Doe
Head of Medical, ” and “John Doe in Charge of
Isolation Cells.” Arnold also filed an Application to
Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (ECF No.
A summary of subsequent events follows.
screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Court ordered Arnold to file an
Amended Complaint, which he did on April 13, 2015 (ECF No.
He included three summonses, none of which was addressed to a
specific Defendant. Nonetheless, they were issued on June 10,
filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) on July 31,
2015. However, he failed to include any
summonses with that document.
September 25, 2015, Arnold filed a Supplemental Complaint
(ECF No. 17). He attached one summons. In a letter dated
September 28, 2015 (ECF No. 15), the Court explained to
Arnold that the summons was not issued because it had not
been properly completed. The Court included with the letter a
blank summons, with instructions regarding completion, as
well as information regarding how to properly effectuate
service of process.
filed a Motion for Service of Process (ECF No. 22) on October
5, 2015. On October 21, 2015, the Court issued a Memorandum
and Order (ECF No. 24) granting Arnold in forma
pauperis status and ordering the U.S. Marshal Service to
serve Defendants with copies of his first and second Amended
Complaints. The Memorandum and Order was followed by a letter
from the Court (ECF No. 26), which included Process Receipt
and Return forms and summonses. The letter again informed
Arnold how the forms should be completed and instructed him
to return them to the Court when completed. The forms were
not completed and returned to the Court as directed.
months later, on May 31, 2016, the Court received a letter
from Arnold (ECF No. 31), in which he apologized for the
“long delay” and his “absence from the
case, ” explained that the case was in the hands of an
attorney for nine months, and stated that he did want to
pursue the matter. On June 9, 2016, the Court issued a Show
Cause Order (ECF No. 32), ordering Arnold to show cause, in
writing, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
prosecution, namely failure to make service upon Defendants
within ninety days after the filing of the Second Amended
Complaint and issuance of summonses as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Show Cause Order further
stated that “[i]f no good cause is shown the
above-referenced matter will be dismissed without
Court received Arnold's response (ECF No. 33) to the Show
Cause Order five days later. Arnold again stated that an
attorney had had the case files for nine months and had just
returned them to Arnold, saying that he did not want the
case. Arnold also stated that he was trying to get another
attorney because he had no legal education or knowledge.
Arnold subsequently sent the Court a letter (ECF No. 34)
informing the Court that he still had no attorney.
Court finds that Arnold has not shown good cause for his
failure to serve Defendants within ninety days of the filing
of the Second Amended Complaint and issuance of summonses as
required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Accordingly, as forewarned in the
Show Cause Order, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
 On May 15, 2015, the Application to
proceed in forma pauperis was denied as moot after
Arnold paid the filing fee.
 At the same time, Arnold filed a
Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5). The motion was denied
without prejudice in a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 7) dated
May 6, 2015. On July 15, 2015, Arnold filed a Notice of
Appeal (ECF No. 12) of the denial. In a Judgment (ECF No. 27)
entered November 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit dismissed the appeal, noting both that an order by a
magistrate judge is not a final order which can be reviewed
directly by a court of appeals and ...