United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
C. DEVER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 14, 2017, Elder Deforrorra Locust
("plaintiff' or "Locust"), proceeding pro
se, filed an unsigned form complaint together with numerous
exhibits. Compl. [D.E. 1], Exs. [D.E. 1-1 through 1-7]. On
September 11, 2017, Locust filed a notice of interlocutory
appeal [D.E. 7], which the clerk transmitted to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [D.E. 8]. On
September 12, 2017, Locust filed purported proofs of service
[D.E. 9-10]. On September 19, 2017, Locust filed a motion for
entry of default as to Christopher Lander, who Locust did not
name as a defendant in his original complaint [D.E.
proofs of service are defective in numerous ways. Locust must
present the summonses to the clerk who then must sign, seal,
and issue the summonses for service on the defendants. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)-(b). "A summons which is not signed
and sealed by the Clerk of the Court does not confer personal
jurisdiction over the defendant." Ayres v. Jacobs
& Crumplar, P.A.. 99 F.3d 565, 569 (3d Cix. 1996):
see Omni Capital Int'l., Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff &
Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987); Lathon v.
UNC-Fayetteville State Univ., No. 5:07-CV-105, 2008 WL
60396, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Jan. 2, 2008) (unpublished). Locust
"is responsible for presenting the summons to the clerk
and serving it on the defendants." Trupei v. United
States. 304 Fed.Appx. 776, 780 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants until
Locust effects proper service of process or obtains waivers
of service under Rule 4(d). See, e.g.. Murphy
Bros.. Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing. Inc.. 526 U.S.
344, 350 (1999). Locust's proofs of service indicate
that-to the extent he served any defendant rather than a
party he did not name as a defendant in his complaint -he did
so personally. See [D.E. 9] 1; [D.E. 10] 1-4; [D.E. 15] 1-5;
[D.E. 15-1] 1-2. However, only a "person who is at
least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and
complaint." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2); see also N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(a) ("The complaint and summons
shall be delivered to some proper person for service.").
Thus, Locust may not personally attempt to serve defendants,
including by personally placing the summons and complaint in
the mail. See, e.g.. Constien v. United
States. 628 F.3d 1207, 1213-14 (10th Cir. 2010);
Reale v. Wake Ctv. Human Servs., No. 5:11-CV-682-D,
2013 WL 2635181, at *2 (E.D. N.C. June 12, 2013)
(unpublished); Thomas v. Nelms, No. 1:09-CV-491,
2013 WL 593419, at *l-2 (M.D. N.C. Feb. 14, 2013)
(unpublished); Knotts v. Univ. of N.C. Charlotte.
No. 3:08-CV-478, 2011 WL 650493, at *8-9 (W.D. N.C. Feb. 10,
2011) (unpublished); Price v. Hous. Auth. of New
Orleans. No. CIV.A. 09-4257, 2010 WL 2836103, at * 1
(E.D. La. July 16, 2010) (unpublished).
proceeding pro se, Locust must comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Baldwin Cty.
Welcome Ctr. v. Brown. 466 U.S. 147, 151-52 (1984) (per
curiam). The court enjoys some discretion in enforcing Rule 4
when there is actual notice, but "the rules are there to
be followed, and plain requirements for the means of
effecting service of process may not be ignored."
Armco. Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., Inc., 733
F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984).
generally allow pro se plaintiffs a chance to remedy
technical insufficiencies in service of process."
Thomas. 2013 WL 593419, at *1; see Knotts.
2011 WL 650493, at * 9. The court directs the clerk to send
Locust summons forms and a copy of this order. Locust must
complete a separate summons for each named defendant and
present the summonses to the clerk's office for issuance.
Locust shall present the completed summonses to the
clerk's office for issuance with a signature and seal on
or before December 8, 2017. Locust will then have until
February 5, 2018, to effect service. The court warns Locust
that if he fails to effect service by that deadline, the
court will dismiss the action without prejudice. See
Locust's motion for entry of default, the court denies
the motion. An entry of default shall be made when "a
party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is
sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Locust seeks entry of default against
someone who has not been named as a defendant. See [D.E. 15].
Moreover, a defendant is not required to answer until after
the defendant has been served with the summons and complaint.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). Because no defendant has been served
with the summons and complaint, no answer is due. Thus, the
court denies the motion.
the court DENIES plaintiffs motion for entry of default [D.E.
15]. The court DIRECTS the clerk to send plaintiff summons
forms and a copy of this order. The court DIRECTS plaintiff
to complete a separate summons for each named defendant and
present the summonses to the clerk's office for issuance
on or before December 8, 2017. Plaintiff will then have until
February 5, 2018, to effect service on all defendants. The
court warns plaintiff that if he fails to effect service by
that deadline, the court will dismiss the action without
prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
 Although Locust captioned his request
as one "for judgment default[, ]" [D.E. 15] 1, the
court construes the motion as one seeking entry of default.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).
 Locust's complaint names as
defendants Don F. Stroud, RL Daughty, and OCG Leroy.
See [D.E. 1] 1. However, Locust has filed documents
indicating that he attempted to serve process on non-parties,
Christopher Lander, Keith Boom, Duke Energy, and J Best, in
addition to the named defendants. See [D.E. 9] 6; [D.E. 10]
1, 5; [D.E. 15] 3, 5. If Locust wants to name additional
defendants, he must file an amended complaint and present
summonses for the newly-named defendants. Cf. Santiago v.
Crown Heights Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab.. No.
15-CV-4381 (DLI) (CLP), 2016 WL 754410, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 24, 2016) (unpublished); Pendergrass v. N.C.
Dep't of Pub. Safety. No. 3:13-CV-129-RJC, 2014 WL
4441460, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 9, 2014) (unpublished).
Locast's "failure to properly name Defendants on the
summons and to ensure that a separate summons was issued for
each defendant resulted in insufficient process."
Coleman v. Bank of New York Mellon. 969 F.Supp.2d
736, 744 (N.D. Tex. 2013).
 Locust states that he attempted to
serve defendants Leroy and Stroud, along with nonparties, by
certified mail. See [D.E. 15] 3; [D.E. 15-1] 4. Locust,
however, has not produced any certified mail receipts. See,
e.g., Hunter v. Hunter. 69 N.C.App. 659, 663, 317
S.E.2d 910, 912 ...