Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections

W.D. Washington

Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections

DecidedJanuary 13, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-05416

StatusUnknown

This text of Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections (Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RENEE BISHOP-MCKEAN, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05416-JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v.

13 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Third Amended Complaint (hereinafter 17 “Complaint”) on October 16, 2020.1 Dkt. 17. On November 2, 2020, the Court directed service 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint on the named Defendants. Dkt. 18. On January 4, 2021, counsel for 19 Defendants Bolter, Boyce, Suarez, Wofford, Washington Corrections Center for Women 20 (“WCC”), and Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) filed an Answer. Dkt. 31. The 21 same day, counsel for Defendants entered a Notice of Non-Representation of Megan Dunlap. 22

23 1 Also pending is Defendants WCC and DOC’s Motion to Dismiss which will be handled 24 in a separately filed report and recommendation. See Dkt. 32 1 Dkt. 29. Counsel states Defendant Dunlap no longer works for the Washington DOC. Dkt. 29. 2 Counsel states service documents were mailed to Defendant Dunlap’s last known address but 3 were returned with a note indicating she no longer resides there. Dkt. 29. Defendant Dunlap has 4 not been served and is not represented in this matter. Dkt. 29.

5 Plaintiff bears the burden of providing accurate and sufficient information to effect 6 service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. When a 7 plaintiff fails to provide the court with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the 8 summons and complaint, it is appropriate for the Court to sua sponte dismiss the unserved 9 defendant. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (quoting Puett v. Blanford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 10 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)). 11 Plaintiff is directed to provide Defendant Dunlap’s complete address so the Court can 12 again attempt service by mail. These addresses must be provided to the Court on or before 13 February 12, 2021. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Court with the address of unserved 14 Defendant Dunlap on or before February 12, 2021, the Court will recommend dismissal of

15 Defendant Dunlap from the case without prejudice. 16 Dated this 13th day of January, 2021. 17 A 18 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RENEE BISHOP-MCKEAN, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05416-JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v.

13 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Third Amended Complaint (hereinafter 17 “Complaint”) on October 16, 2020.1 Dkt. 17. On November 2, 2020, the Court directed service 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint on the named Defendants. Dkt. 18. On January 4, 2021, counsel for 19 Defendants Bolter, Boyce, Suarez, Wofford, Washington Corrections Center for Women 20 (“WCC”), and Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) filed an Answer. Dkt. 31. The 21 same day, counsel for Defendants entered a Notice of Non-Representation of Megan Dunlap. 22

23 1 Also pending is Defendants WCC and DOC’s Motion to Dismiss which will be handled 24 in a separately filed report and recommendation. See Dkt. 32 1 Dkt. 29. Counsel states Defendant Dunlap no longer works for the Washington DOC. Dkt. 29. 2 Counsel states service documents were mailed to Defendant Dunlap’s last known address but 3 were returned with a note indicating she no longer resides there. Dkt. 29. Defendant Dunlap has 4 not been served and is not represented in this matter. Dkt. 29.

5 Plaintiff bears the burden of providing accurate and sufficient information to effect 6 service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. When a 7 plaintiff fails to provide the court with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the 8 summons and complaint, it is appropriate for the Court to sua sponte dismiss the unserved 9 defendant. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (quoting Puett v. Blanford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 10 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)). 11 Plaintiff is directed to provide Defendant Dunlap’s complete address so the Court can 12 again attempt service by mail. These addresses must be provided to the Court on or before 13 February 12, 2021. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Court with the address of unserved 14 Defendant Dunlap on or before February 12, 2021, the Court will recommend dismissal of

15 Defendant Dunlap from the case without prejudice. 16 Dated this 13th day of January, 2021. 17 A 18 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-mckean-v-washington-department-of-corrections-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack