Hines v. Dzurenda

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 Tony Hines, Case No. 2:24-cv-00060-JAD-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s),v. Order

8 James Dzurenda, et al., [Docket Nos. 32, 33] 9 Defendant(s). 10 On July 2, 2025, the Court ordered the United States Marshals Service to attempt to 11 effectuate service on Defendant William Miller. Docket No. 28. The Court also reset the service 12 deadline to August 15, 2025. See id. On July 3, 2025, the Marshals Service filed a summons 13 returned unexecuted because service cannot be completed at a post office box. Docket No. 30. 14 On August 18, 2025, the Court issued a notice of intent to dismiss Defendant Miller pursuant to 15 Rule 4(m), which also provided for seeking an extension of the service deadline. See Docket No. 16 32. On August 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking relief from the Rule 4(m) notice. Docket 17 No. 33.1 On September 4, 2025, Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 34. The 18 Court does not require a reply or a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 19 I. EXTENSION 20 Plaintiff seeks an extension of the service deadline. See Docket No. 33 at 2. Extensions 21 to the service deadline must be allowed upon a showing of good cause, but such extensions may 22 also be provided even without such a showing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In this case, the Marshals 23 Service indicated that the last known address for Defendant Miller was not suitable for service 24 because it is a post office box. See Docket No. 30. Moreover, Plaintiff showed diligence before 25 that time in moving for service on Defendant Miller, submitting the required USM-285 form, and 26

27 1 “Courts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro se litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims by inmates.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 28 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). 1 seeking an update on service when it had not been completed. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 20, 24. The 2 circumstances warrant an extension of 45 days to the service deadline. This aspect of Plaintiff’s 3 motion is granted. 4 II. HIRING A PRIVATE LEGAL PROCESS FIRM 5 Plaintiff seeks issuance of an order requiring Defendants to hire a private legal process firm 6 to obtain another address at which to attempt service on Defendant Miller. Docket No. 33 at 2; 7 see also id. at 3. Defendants failed to address this argument in their response, Docket No. 34, so 8 any counter-argument has been waived, see, e.g., Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Countrywide 9 Fin. Corp., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“[i]n most circumstances, failure to 10 respond in an opposition brief to an argument put forward in an opening brief constitutes waiver 11 or abandonment in regard to the uncontested issue”).2 12 Despite Defendants’ waiver, the Court is not persuaded at this time that Defendants should 13 be ordered to pay for a private legal process firm to find an alternative address for Defendant 14 Miller. Plaintiff’s request on this front appears to stem from the general duty to avoid unnecessary 15 expense in service, see Docket No. 34 at 2, see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), but Plaintiff has not 16 sufficiently explained how a duty to avoid unnecessary expense translates into requiring a litigation 17 adversary to preemptively pay to find a new address at which to attempt service on a co-defendant. 18 Given the circumstances of this case, the Court instead finds that the Attorney General’s Office 19 must inquire within the Nevada Department of Corrections (and any related state entity that may 20 hold pertinent information) as to an alternative address for Defendant Miller. Cf. Docket No. 11 21 at 2 (“If the last known address of the defendant(s) is a post office box, the Attorney General’s 22 Office shall attempt to obtain and provide the last known physical address(es)”). 23 No later than September 15, 2025, the Attorney General’s Office must file a notice on the 24 public docket advising whether it has obtained an alternative address for Defendant Miller. If an 25 alternative address has been located, the Attorney General’s Office must file that address under 26 seal. If an alternative address has been located, Plaintiff must file in prompt fashion a motion 27 2 As discussed in the order issued concurrently herewith, the responsive brief fell well 28 below the expectations of the Court. 1} seeking attempted service at that sealed address. If an alternative address has not been located by 2|| the Attorney General’s Office, Plaintiff must file in prompt fashion a motion identifying the 3] unserved defendant and specifying a detailed name and/or address for said defendant, or whether some other manner of service should be attempted. 5] TI. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 7|| part. The deadline to effectuate service on Defendant Miller is EXTENDED to October 20, 2025. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 8, 2025 10 7. —. Nancy-J. Koppe 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28