Murphy v. Duchesne County Sheriffs Department

District Court, D. Utah·Decided August 12, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-00852·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

ANTHONY CHARLES MURPHY, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL AND SERVICE OF PROCESS v.

SGT. D. ROBERTS et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00852-JNP

Defendants. District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Plaintiff/inmate, Anthony Charles Murphy, filed this pro se civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2021),1 proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915 (2021). Having now screened Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 15), under its statutory review function,2 the Court concludes that a 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 DUCHESNE COUNTY (“DC”) To be valid, the Amended Complaint must clearly state what the defendant did to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262–63 (10th Cir. 1976) (stating personal participation of each defendant 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 Stone v. Albert, 338 F. App’x 757, 759 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)). Moreover, Plaintiff may not name 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). Further, to establish liability of local-government entities, such as DC, under § 1983, “a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a municipal custom or policy and (2) a direct causal link between the custom or policy and the violation alleged.” Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 993–94 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)). Local governmental entities may not be held liable under § 1983 based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. See

Cannon v. City & County of Denver, 998 F.2d 867, 877 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Plaintiff has not tied any material facts to DC. Nor has he suggested a direct causal link between his alleged injuries and any DC custom or policy. Any claims against DC may not survive these omissions; DC is thus dismissed. B. SERVICE ORDER REGARDING REMAINING DEFENDANTS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court requests waiver of service from DC defendants Sgt. D. Roberts and Lt. Travis Givens. C. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that: (1) 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 Amended

Complaint, (ECF No. 15), and this Order to: Duchesne County Jail Attention: Sheriff Tucker PO Box 985 Duchesne, Utah 84021

(2) 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. (3) For every defendant for whom service has been ordered but for whom a waiver has not been executed, attorneys for 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. (4) 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. (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 want to pierce the complaint’s allegations, Defendants must, (i) within 60 days of date of waiver request, file an answer;

3 See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir.

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

Murphy v. Duchesne County Sheriffs Department, (D. Utah 2021).

Murphy v. Duchesne County Sheriffs Department (Murphy v. Duchesne County Sheriffs Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
City of Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Stone v. Albert
338 F. App'x 757 (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)
Jenkins v. Wood
81 F.3d 988 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)
Cannon v. City & County of Denver
998 F.2d 867 (Tenth Circuit, 1993)