Hale v. Anderson

District Court, D. Utah·Decided August 13, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-00450·Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

RICKY L. HALE,

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS

v. Case No. 2:23-CV-450 HCN UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Howard C. Nielson, Jr. United States District Judge

Defendants.

Plaintiff Ricky L. Hale, an inmate at Utah State Correctional Facility, brough this pro se civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 8. The court screened the amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies the court identified in the amended complaint before further pursuing his claims. See Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff timely filed a second amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 10. The court has screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Based on this review, the court concludes that the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) is an improper defendant and must be dismissed from this matter. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against “[e]very person” who, acting under color of law, deprives a plaintiff “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But “State agencies (including correctional facilities) are not persons under Section 1983,” and so cannot be sued under that statute. Krebs v. El Dorado Corr. Facility, 673 Fed. App’x 891, 892 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989)). A suit under Section 1983 may proceed, however, if it names a defendant who can be sued. Plaintiff names Marcus Wisner, Michael Parsons, Cutler Frandsen, Taska Clark, and one “Kerri M.,” dentists and dental assistants employed by UDOC. Process may properly be served upon these individual defendants, and Plaintiff’s action may proceed against them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Clerk’s Office shall request waivers of service from Defendants Wisner, Parsons, Frandsen, Clark, and "Kerri M." Counsel for the fully named defendants shall exercise their best efforts, using the information in the second amended complaint and the other defendants’ recollections, to identify “Kerri M.” 2. That the Clerk of Court shall mail: a. A Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; 2 copies of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO form 399;

and a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 11, and this Order to: Utah Department of Corrections, Att’n: Correctional Program Coordinator—3rd Floor DPO Suite 14717 South Minuteman Drive Draper, Utah 84020 b. Copies of the Second Amended Complaint and this Order to: Utah Attorney General’s Office, Att’n: Litigation Division, Prisoner Litigation Unit 160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor P.O. Box 140856 Salt Lake City Utah 84114 3. Defendants are cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires them to

cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of summons and complaint. See Fed. R .Civ. P. 4(d)(1). If Defendants do not waive service after being asked to do so by the Court on Plaintiff’s behalf, Defendants must bear service costs unless they can show good cause for not waiving service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). 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 when the waiver request was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). Defendants should read the statement at the end of the waiver form that more completely describes their duties regarding waiver of service. 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. 4. If Defendants do not execute waivers, attorney(s) for Defendants shall file a notice listing reasons a waiver has not been given. That notice shall be due 30 days from the date a request was sent. 5. Defendants shall answer the Second Amended Complaint, observing the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the deadlines set forth therein. a. If Defendants assert Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense, Defendants shall i. file an answer within 60 days of a request for waiver of service; ii. prepare and file a Martinez report detailing the exhaustion issue within 90 days of filing an answer, see Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1987); and

iii. file a separate summary judgment motion, with a supporting memorandum of facts and law, within 120 days of filing an answer. b. If Defendants challenge the complaint’s allegations, Defendants shall, within 60 days of the request of waiver of service, file a motion to dismiss based under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). c. If Defendants choose not to make an exhaustion defense, Defendants: i. shall file an answer within 60 days of date of waiver request; ii. may prepare and file a Martinez report addressing the complaint’s

substance within 90 days of filing an answer; and, iii. may file a separate summary judgment motion, with supporting memorandum, within 120 days of filing an answer. d. If Defendants choose to seek other relief otherwise contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they shall file an appropriate motion within 90 days of filing an answer. 6. Plaintiff may respond to the Martinez report within 30 days of its filing. Plaintiff is cautioned that Martinez reports may "be used for their truth against a plaintiff if the plaintiff has been warned that failing to respond to the Martinez report could lead to that result." Ortiz v. Torgensen, 857 F. App'x 419, 426-27 (10th Cir. 2021). The court now makes that warning to Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff shall respond to a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion within 30 days of its filing. For Plaintiff's information and convenience, the Court has attached the procedural rules governing summary judgment practice to this order. The Plaintiff shall comply with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

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

Hale v. Anderson, (D. Utah 2024).

Hale v. Anderson (Hale v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)