Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections

W.D. Washington

Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided January 13, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-05416·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05416-JLR-DWC Plaintiff, ORDER v.

CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.

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

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

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

Defendant Dunlap from the case without prejudice. Dated this 13th day of January, 2021. A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05416-JLR-DWC Plaintiff, ORDER v.

CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.

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

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

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

Defendant Dunlap from the case without prejudice. Dated this 13th day of January, 2021. A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

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

Pincite

Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections (Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related