Abreu v. Davis County

CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedAugust 1, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-00129
StatusUnknown

This text of Abreu v. Davis County (Abreu v. Davis County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abreu v. Davis County, (D. Utah 2022).

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

ANGEL CHRISTOPHER ABREU,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS v.

DAVIS COUNTY et al., Case No. 1:21-CV-129 RJS

Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby Defendants.

Plaintiff, Angel Christopher Abreu, a Davis County inmate, filed this pro se civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2022),1 proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. Having now screened Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 10), under its statutory review function,2 the Court concludes official service of process is warranted. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2022) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.”).

1 The federal civil-rights statute reads, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . ., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2022). 2 The screening statute reads: (a) Screening.—The court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. (b) Grounds for dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint— (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2022). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court therefore requests waiver of service from these eighteen Davis County defendants: Sgt. K. BEAL, Corrections Cpl. CLARK, Corrections DAVIS COUNTY Amy HUTCHINSON, Corrections Officer and C.E.R.T. member Z. JOLLEY, Corrections Officer SC LEWIS, Corrections Officer and C.E.R.T. member Dep. LIST, Corrections Lt. JENSEN, Corrections Dep. MAJOR, Corrections and C.E.R.T. member Cole MELDRUM, Corrections and Administration Divisions Leader Sgt. MELDRUM, Classification Disciplinary Appeal Cpl. T. NIX, Corrections Officer and C.E.R.T. member Christopher RUMMELL, Corrections Officer and C.E.R.T. member J. SCHOW, Classification Disciplinary Officer E. SULLIVAN, Corrections Officer Wilbert TERRELL, Corrections Officer and C.E.R.T. member Sgt. TOWNSEND, Religious Administrator Doctor WOODS, jail physician

IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The Clerk of Court shall mail Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; copies of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO form 399; and copies of Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 10), and this Order to: Davis County Clerk P.O. Box 618 Farmington, Utah 84025.

(2) Defendants are cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires Defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of serving summons and complaint. Under Rule 4, if Defendants fail to waive service of summons, after being asked by the Court to do so on Plaintiff’s behalf, Defendants must bear service costs unless good cause be shown for failing to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the day the waiver is filed, except that Defendants need not file an answer until 60 days from the date on which the waiver request was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). (This allows longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) Defendants must read the statement at the bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the party’s duties about waiver. If service is waived after the deadline given in the Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, but before Defendants

have been personally served, the Answer shall be due 60 days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or 20 days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. (3) For every defendant for whom service has been ordered but for whom a waiver has not been executed, attorneys for defendant must file a notice listing the defendant for whom service has not been waived and the reasons a waiver has not been provided. This report is due 30 days from the date the Request was sent. (4) Defendants shall answer the complaint, observing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the following litigation schedule: (a) If Defendants assert the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust

administrative remedies in a grievance process, Defendants must, (i) within 60 days of date of waiver request, file an answer; (ii) within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report3 limited to the exhaustion issue; and, (iii) within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment motion, with supporting memorandum. (b) If Defendants challenge the complaint’s bare allegations, Defendants shall,

within 60 days of date of waiver request, file a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (c) If Defendants choose not to rely on an exhaustion defense and wants to pierce the complaint’s allegations, Defendants must, (i) within 60 days of date of waiver request, file an answer; (ii) within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report addressing the complaint’s substance; and, (iii) within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment motion, with supporting memorandum.

(d) If Defendants seek relief otherwise contemplated under procedural rules, Defendants must file an appropriate motion within 90 days of filing an answer.

3 See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (approving district court’s practice of ordering prison administration to prepare report to be included in pleadings in cases when prisoner has filed suit alleging constitutional violation against institution officials).

In Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1987), the Tenth Circuit explained the nature and function of a Martinez report, saying: Under the Martinez procedure, the district judge or a United States magistrate [judge] to whom the matter has been referred will direct prison officials to respond in writing to the various allegations, supporting their response by affidavits and copies of internal disciplinary rules and reports. The purpose of the Martinez report is to ascertain whether there is a factual as well as a legal basis for the prisoner's claims. This, of course, will allow the court to dig beneath the conclusional allegations. These reports have proved useful to determine whether the case is so devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal without trial. Id. at 1007. (5) Plaintiff may, within 30 days of its filing, respond to Martinez report if desired. (6) Plaintiff must, within 30 days of its filing, respond to motion to dismiss or summary- judgment motion. For Plaintiff’s information and convenience, the Court has attached the procedural rules governing summary-judgment practice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abreu v. Davis County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-davis-county-utd-2022.