Lee #813869 v. Schroeder et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
______
CLIFTON TERRON LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SARAH SCHROEDER et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 2:25-cv-228
Honorable Ray Kent
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND FOR SERVICE
This is a prisoner civil rights action. In an opinion and order (ECF Nos. 4, 5) entered on
October 20, 2025, the Court partially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant to 	28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The Court then referred the case to the Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation
Early Mediation Program and entered an order staying the case for any purpose other than
mediation. (ECF No. 6.) The case was removed from early mediation on November 25, 2025.
(ECF No. 8.) Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the stay of this proceeding that was entered to facilitate the
mediation is LIFTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in its October 20, 2025, order (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff is responsible for paying
the entire $350.00 filing fee in installments, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). See McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled in other part by LaFountain v.
Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013); Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997).
Case 2:25-cv-00228-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff must pay the filing fee through monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s
income credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Accordingly,
each month that the amount in Plaintiff’s trust account exceeds $10.00, the agency having custody
of Plaintiff shall collect 20 percent of the preceding months’ income and remit that amount to the
Clerk of this Court. The agency shall continue to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s
prisoner account until the entire filing fee is paid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 90-day period for service set forth in Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(m) shall run, starting with the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward the complaint to the U.S.
Marshals Service, which is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants Giotto,
Lawry, Gregurash, and Nachtman1 in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). If waiver
of service is unsuccessful, summons shall issue and be forwarded to the U.S. Marshals Service for
service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Giotto, Lawry, Gregurash, and Nachtman
shall file an appearance of counsel (individual Defendants may appear pro se if they do not have
counsel) within 21 days of service or, in the case of a waiver of service, 60 days after the waiver
of service was sent. Until so ordered by the Court, no Defendant is required to file an answer or
motion in response to the complaint, and no default will be entered for failure to do so. See 42
1 Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to warrant service of the complaint against Unknown Parties,
referred to as John Does 1-5. However, the Court is unable to order service on those Defendants
because Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify them. While the United States
Marshal Service is expected to make a reasonable effort to serve identified Defendants on behalf
of plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal Service is not required to identify the
individuals to be served. See Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[W]hen a plaintiff
is proceeding in forma pauperis the court is obligated to issue plaintiff’s process to a United States
Marshal who must in turn effectuate service upon the defendants . . . once reasonable steps have
been taken to identify for the court the defendants named in the complaint.”) (emphasis added).
Case 2:25-cv-00228-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

3
U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). After a Defendant has filed an appearance, the Court will enter a case
management order to govern further proceedings in this case.
Dated: 	December 3, 2025 	/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00228-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3