Luesse v. Rivera

District Court, D. Utah·Decided January 16, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-00030·Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

MICHAEL RICHARD LUESSE JR., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS Plaintiffs, AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL v.

ROSIE RIVERA et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00030-JNP

District Judge Jill N. Parrish Defendants.

As an unrepresented former inmate, Plaintiff filed this civil-rights suit, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2023), proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, see 28 id. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 5-6.) Having now screened the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 11), under its statutory review function,1 the Court concludes that official service of process is warranted for Defendants. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2023) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases."). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court requests waiver of service from the following Salt Lake County defendants: Sheriff Rosie Rivera and Doctor Nicholas Brening. (ECF No. 11.)

1The 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 (2023). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) Defendants Rivera and Brening shall answer the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) (2) 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 the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 11), and this Order to Salt Lake County defendants Rivera and Brening in care of: Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Ms. Carita Lucey 2001 S. State Street, Suite S2700 Salt Lake City, UT 84190.

(3) 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. (4) For every Defendant for whom service has been ordered but for whom a waiver has not been executed, attorneys for the entity at which service was tried for that 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. (5) Defendants shall answer the Amended 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 report2 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,

2See 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 want to seek relief otherwise contemplated under procedural rules, Defendants must file an appropriate motion within 90 days of filing an answer. (6) Plaintiff must, within 30 days of its filing, respond to Martinez report, including a request and justification for other discovery needed. (7) Plaintiff must, within 30 days of its filing, respond to any motion to dismiss or summary-judgment motion. For Plaintiff's information and convenience, the Court has attached the procedural rules governing summary-judgment practice. (8) Defendants may file a reply brief within 14 days after the day Plaintiff's opposition is

filed. (9) A motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is 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. (10) Plaintiff's second motion for appointed counsel, (ECF No. 12), is DENIED, for the same reasons stated in the prior order denying appointment of voluntary pro bono counsel, (ECF Nos. 7, 10). As the Court stated in its prior order, "[I]f, after the case develops further, it appears that counsel may be needed or of specific help, the Court will ask an attorney to appear pro bono on Plaintiff's behalf." (ECF No. 10). No further motions for appointed counsel are needed. DATED January 12, 2024.

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

Luesse v. Rivera, (D. Utah 2024).

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

Related

Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)