Martinez v. Brown

CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedJuly 13, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-00254
StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. Brown (Martinez v. Brown) 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
Martinez v. Brown, (D. Utah 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

REYNALDO THOMAS MARTINEZ,

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

RICK BROWN et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-254 TC

District Judge Tena Campbell Defendants.

Plaintiff, Reynaldo Thomas Martinez, held at Utah State Prison (USP), filed this pro se civil suit, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2021),1 proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. Having now screened the Complaint, (ECF No. 4), under its statutory review function,2 the Court concludes that one defendant must be dismissed and official service of process is warranted for remaining defendants. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2021) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.”).

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 (2021). 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 (2021). A. DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT “USP WARDEN” The complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate Plaintiff's civil rights. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976) (stating each defendant’s personal participation is essential allegation). "To state a claim, a complaint must 'make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom.'" Stone v. Albert, 338 F. App’x

757, 759 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiff may not name an individual as a defendant based solely on supervisory status. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating supervisory status alone is insufficient to support liability under § 1983). Nor does "denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff . . . establish personal participation under § 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009). Considering these guidelines, the Court concludes Plaintiff has done nothing to affirmatively link to his claims this defendant: “USP Warden.” He has not tied any material facts

to this defendant. Any claims against this defendant may not survive this omission; they are thus dismissed. B. SERVICE ORDER REGARDING REMAINING DEFENDANTS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court requests waiver of service from USP Defendants Rick Brown (disciplinary hearing officer (DHO)); Maryann Redding (DHO); Caleb Head (corrections officer); and Joshua Cahoon (investigator). C. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Defendant USP Warden is DISMISSED. (2) The Clerk of Court shall mail: (a) 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 Complaint, (ECF No. 4), and this Order to Defendants Brown, Redding, Head, and Cahoon: Utah Department of Corrections Att’n: Correctional Program Coordinator--3rd Floor DPO Suite 14717 South Minuteman Drive Draper, UT 84020.

(b) Copies of 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, UT 84114-0856.

(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 Department of Corrections or 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 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.

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.

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

Related

Stone v. Albert
338 F. App'x 757 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)
Gallagher v. Shelton
587 F.3d 1063 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)
Howard Smith Bennett v. Albert Passic, Sheriff, Etc.
545 F.2d 1260 (Tenth Circuit, 1976)
Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Mitchell v. Maynard
80 F.3d 1433 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martinez v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-brown-utd-2021.