Battles v. Pollard

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00689
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Lorenzo Battles, Case No. 2:24-cv-00689-BNW-JAD

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Pollard,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, requests that defendant’s last-known 11 address be filed under seal so that he can effectuate service of process. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff 12 explains he is not able to locate a valid address at which defendant can be served. Id. 13 I. Procedural background 14 After screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the district court allowed a First Amendment 15 retaliation claim and Fourteenth Amendment bodily integrity claim to proceed against Defendant 16 Pollard. ECF No. 3. In that order, the court requested that defendant Pollard waive service of the 17 summons and complaint by executing a waiver. The order, however, never reached Pollard, or his 18 employer, and was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 5. 19 II. Analysis 20 Although an incarcerated pro se plaintiff is entitled to rely on the United States Marshal to 21 make service, it is ultimately a plaintiff's responsibility to provide the Marshal with a defendant's 22 correct address. See Furnace v. Knuckles, No. 09-6075, 2011 WL 3809770, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23 29, 2011) (“It is plaintiff's responsibility to provide accurate addresses for defendants in order that 24 they can be served by the United States Marshal.”). At the same time, this Court has an 25 “obligation to assist a pro se incarcerated litigant to obtain discovery. . . so that service can be 26 effected.” Carpio v. Luther, No. 06-0857, 2009 WL 605300, at *1 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009) 27 (citing Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Billman v. Indiana Dep’t of 1 || ina position to identify the proper defendants, or all of them in his complaint. .. We think it is the 2 || duty of the district court to assist [the incarcerated pro se litigant], within reason, to make the 3 || necessary investigation.”). 4 As aresult, this Court will first ensure that the relevant orders are received by METRO so 5 |} it can (1) advise the court whether it will waive service of the summons and complaint in this case 6 || or (2) if Pollard is no longer employed by METRO, advise whether it objects to filing Pollard’s 7 || last-known address under seal. 8 Plaintiff's request is accordingly GRANTED in part as follows. METRO will be required 9 || to respond within 30 days from today. Should METRO not be willing to waive service of process, 10 || or should METRO not agree to file Pollard’s last known address under seal, Plaintiff must file the 11 || appropriate motion seeking to conduct early discovery. 12 |} IM. Conclusion 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED in part as 14 || described in the body of this order. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail this order, and ECF 16 || No. 3, to LVMPD Assistant General Counsel Ruth Miller at 400 S. Martin L. King Blvd. Las 17 || Vegas, NV 89106. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that METRO shall enter a limited notice of appearance for 19 || the purpose of responding to this order no later than August 21, 2025. 20 21 DATED: July 22, 2025 22 23 Ei gan Ls Are ben BRENDA WEKSLER 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28