J.S. v. Kent School District

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 J.S., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01060-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff J.S. initiated this case in July 2024 17 and filed an amended complaint in September 2024. Dkt. No. 1, 13. However, he has failed to 18 serve the Defendants within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 4(m). 20 “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless 21 notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., 22 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999); see also Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. 23 Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal 24 jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 1 satisfied.”). And when, as here, “a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 2 filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 3 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The district court must extend the 90-day period upon a showing of good

5 cause and, absent such a showing, retains broad discretion to dismiss the action or extend the 6 period for service. Id.; see In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001); Efaw v. Williams, 473 7 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “[I]f good cause is not established, the district court may extend 8 time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 9 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 In this case, J.S. has not properly served Defendants within 90 days of filing his amended 11 complaint. He filed a document titled “Proof of Service,” Dkt. No. 16, but that filing does not 12 demonstrate service. Rather, it only shows that a copy of the amended complaint was mailed 13 through the United States Postal Service. Id. at 4. As the Court previously noted, Dkt. No. 18 at 2, 14 service by mail alone is not permitted under either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed.

15 R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2), or Washington law when personal service is possible, Williams v. Recovery 16 Innovations Inc., No. 3:24-cv-05496-DGE, 2024 WL 4519959, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2024) 17 (citing Rodriguez v. James-Jackson, 111 P.3d 271, 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)). J.S.’s purported 18 “Proof of Service” therefore does not reflect service on any Defendant. And because Defendants 19 have not waived service, J.S. must serve them as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1 20 The Court thus ORDERS J.S. to, within 30 days of this Order, either file proof of service 21 or show cause why the Court should not dismiss his claims against Defendants without prejudice 22

23 1 The Court again notes that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s “Pro Se Guide,” https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ProSeManual4 8 2013wforms.pdf, provides guidance for pro se 24 litigants on various topics, including the service requirement. 1 for failure to timely serve them in accordance with Rule 4. Alternatively, J.S. may request an 2 extension of the 90-day period and establish good cause for such an extension. The Court will 3 dismiss the case without prejudice absent a timely response. 4 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2025.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23