Williams v. A Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER-MICHAEL
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
A CORPORATION D/B/A
WRITEAPRISONER.COM, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-00154
District Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
ORDER
This Court ordered the United States Marshal Service to serve the six named
Defendants in this case with process in October 2025. (Doc. No. 6 at PageID 107.) It
appears that the five named individual Defendants were successfully served. (See Doc.
Nos. 7, 13.) Two Defendants, A Corporation d/b/a WriteAPrisoner.com
(“WriteAPrisoner”) and Adam Lovell, have since appeared through counsel. (Doc. Nos.
9, 10.) Defendants James Upchurch, Eugene Atherton, Steve Arnold, and Joy Perry
have not appeared. According to counsel for WriteAPrisoner and Lovell, Defendant Joy
Perry is deceased. (See Doc. No. 20 at PageID 212.)
Plaintiff Williams, a prisoner who is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, filed two amended complaints after service of process was issued. (See Doc.
No. 13 [green cards returned]; Doc. Nos. 16, 21 [motions to amend the complaint].) It
does not appear that Plaintiff served all named Defendants with these motions. (See
Case: 2:25-cv-00154-JLG-CHG Doc #: 25 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Doc. No. 16 at PageID 146; Doc. No. 21 at PageID 228 [both indicating that
Defendants were served “Through Counsel ECF filing”].) Because counsel has only
appeared for two Defendants (see Doc. Nos. 9, 10), only those two Defendants may be
served through counsel. The other Defendants, who are unrepresented, do not appear to
be registered users of the Court’s ECF filing system and thus would not receive
notifications from it.
Therefore, while Plaintiff may serve the two represented Defendants through
their counsel via the Court’s ECF filing system, Plaintiff is responsible for separately
serving each of the other Defendants. Plaintiff is REMINDED that each filing must
include a certificate confirming that it was served on all other parties (or on their
attorneys, if they have attorneys). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1
Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve Defendants Upchurch, Atherton, and Arnold
with his Second Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. No. 21) by mail, and to file a
certificate of service that so reflects, by February 13, 2026. If Plaintiff disputes
1 This Local Rule, titled “Certificate of Service: Delivery Electronically,” provides:
(a) Certificate of Service. Proof of service of all pleadings and other papers required or
permitted to be served (except in the case of an ex parte proceeding) shall be made in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Such proof of service shall state the date and
manner of service, including the name of the person(s) served and the address(es) to
which service was directed, and shall be fully stated on or attached to the copy of the
pleading or other document served upon a party or upon the trial attorney of each
party.
(b) Delivery Electronically. Any party may make service through the Court’s ECF
system on parties who are registered users of the system as provided in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(E).
S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.
Case: 2:25-cv-00154-JLG-CHG Doc #: 25 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
counsel’s assertion that Defendant Perry is deceased, then he shall also attempt to serve
her by February 13, 2026.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket with the addresses that
Plaintiff provided for Defendants Upchurch, Atherton, and Arnold (see Doc. No. 16-1)
and to mail a copy of this Order to each of them, along with a copy of the Order
screening the Second Amended Complaint.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to amend the name of the lead defendant on
the docket to reflect how it is named in the Second Amended Complaint: A
CORPORATION D/B/A WRITEAPRISONER.COM. (Doc. No. 23 at PageID 243.)
The Court LIFTS the temporary stay of the deadline for the named Defendants
to respond to the Second Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 22 at PageID 242.)
Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise plead to the Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 23) by February 27, 2026.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE “John Doe(s)” as a defendant on
the docket, as Plaintiff did not name any John Doe(s) as defendants in the Second
Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 23 at PageID 247 at ¶ 9 [naming only Jane
Doe(s)].) No service has yet been issued as to the “Jane Doe” Defendants.2
2 As the Court previously explained:
Before service may be issued upon the John and Jane Doe Defendants, Plaintiff must file
a motion to issue service that identifies the currently unidentified Defendants. Plaintiff is
therefore ORDERED to file a motion to issue service, including United States Marshal
and summons forms, if and when Plaintiff discovers the identity of the unnamed
Defendants through discovery. Plaintiff is advised that no service will be issued on the
unnamed Defendants unless and until Plaintiff complies with this Order. Plaintiff is
Case: 2:25-cv-00154-JLG-CHG Doc #: 25 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Plaintiff is REMINDED that he must keep this Court informed of his current
address and promptly file a Notice of New Address if he is released or transferred.
Finally, the undersigned notes that the Court’s website has resources for parties
who are proceeding without counsel. See https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pro-se.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
further cautioned that if he fails to comply with this Order, then his claims against the
John and Jane Doe Defendants will likely be dismissed.
(Order Screening Original Complaint, Doc. No. 6 at PageID 107 [emphasis in original].)
Plaintiff should not delay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not
served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice
to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the
court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”).
Case: 2:25-cv-00154-JLG-CHG Doc #: 25 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>