Dulaney v. Salt Lake County Sheriff

CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedFebruary 1, 2021
Docket2:18-cv-00544
StatusUnknown

This text of Dulaney v. Salt Lake County Sheriff (Dulaney v. Salt Lake County Sheriff) 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
Dulaney v. Salt Lake County Sheriff, (D. Utah 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

ARTHUR DULANEY,

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

DEPUTY N. BAKER et al., Case No. 2:18-CV-544 TS

District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants.

Plaintiff, a Utah State Prison inmate, filed this pro se civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2020),1 proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. Having now screened Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 35), under its statutory review function,2 the Court concludes official service of process is warranted. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2020) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.”). Under Federal

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 (2020). 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 (2020). Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court therefore requests waiver of service from Salt Lake County Defendants Deputy N. Baker and Deputy M. Gallaway. 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 Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 35), and this Order to: Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office Ms. Carita Lucey 2001 S. State Street, Suite S2700 Salt Lake City, UT 84190.

(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,

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. (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. (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. (7) Defendants shall file reply brief within 14 days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. (8) A motion to dismiss or for summary judgment shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on a motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.

(9) Plaintiff must tell the Court of any address change and timely comply with Court orders. See D. Utah Civ. R. 83-1.3(e) ("In all cases, counsel and parties appearing pro se must notify the clerk's office immediately of any change in address, email address, or telephone number."). Failure to do so may result in this action’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41

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)
Dulaney v. Salt Lake County Sheriff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dulaney-v-salt-lake-county-sheriff-utd-2021.