Opinion
2:22-cv-01449-APG-NJK
04-10-2024
STEPHEN ZARATE, Plaintiff(s), v. IVANA ARAMARK, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 34]
Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to serve Defendant Ivana Aramark at a new address. Docket No. 34. The motion identifies this new address as 850 Las Vegas Blvd N., Las Vegas, NV 89101. Id. at 1. This is not a new address, however, but the same address at which the prior service attempt was unsuccessful. See Docket No. 31. The Deputy Marshal indicated already that this address “is incorrect. Address is open lot/ Baseball field.” Id. at 1. There is no point in authorizing additional service at an incorrect address. The motion for service is DENIED.
In addition to the above, the Court notes a contemporaneous filing by Plaintiff asking the Court to intervene and assist him in finding addresses for the unserved Defendants. Docket No. 33. While courts construe the filings of unrepresented litigants liberally, they “have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). The Court will not research or locate addresses on Plaintiff's behalf at which to attempt service, as “it is ultimately the plaintiff's responsibility to obtain an address at which the defendant may be served by the Marshal.” Gibbs v. Fey, 2017 WL 8131473, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2017) (citing Bivins v. Ryan, 2013 WL 2004462, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2013)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.