O'Neal v. Zurich Insurance Company Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 7, 2020·No. 2:18-cv-01677·Unknown

Opinion

* * *

Wendell Dwayne O’Neal, Case No. 2:18-cv-01677-RFB-BNW

Plaintiff, Order re [16] v.

Zurich Insurance Company Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

O’Neal initiated this matter with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and accompanying complaint. ECF No. 1. The Court granted IFP status to O’Neal, screened his complaint, and recommended that it be dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 7. Since that time, O’Neal has twice amended his complaint. ECF Nos. 12 and 15. In his latest complaint, O’Neal accuses the 11 defendants of agreeing to deny O’Neal’s civil rights to “sue, give evidence, and [] the full and equal benefit of all laws.” ECF No. 15 at 6. O’Neal filed his motion for service of process at ECF No. 16. The Court has thus far deferred ruling on the motion because it intended to screen the operative complaint for cognizable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (explaining that when a litigant proceeds IFP, the court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious”). The Court ordinarily screens indigent plaintiffs’ complaints prior to service. See Cono v. Loiacono, 2018 WL 9848280, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2018) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). The purpose of the screening procedure is “to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.” Cf. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (construing § 1915A, which is the provision of the IFP statute applicable to incarcerated litigants) (citing Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th section 1915 are to be made . . . before burdening a defendant with the necessity of making a responsive answer under the rules of civil procedure.”) Now, however, all the named defendants have appeared and filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending before the district judge. ECF No. 22. As a result, the Court declines to screen plaintiff’s complaint because defendants’ appearance and motion obviate the purpose of the screening procedure. See Olausen v. Murguia, No. 3:13-CV-00388-MMD, 2014 WL 6065622, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2014) (“[T]he screening provision does not require a court, either explicitly or implicitly, to screen every time a plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint.”). That said, O’Neal retains his IFP status. When a party proceeds IFP, the Court “shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (explaining that upon an IFP plaintiff’s request, the Court “must” “order that service be made by a United States marshal . . . or by a person specially appointed by the court.”); Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir. 1990) (“a party proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to have the summons and complaint served by the U.S. Marshal.”). Still, an IFP plaintiff who invokes the Court’s aid in issuing and serving all process ordinarily “must provide sufficient identifying information, including a full name and a current address for the unserved defendants, so they can be served.” Thomas v. Ellis, 2014 WL 116286, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014). Failure to do so can result in a dismissal for lack of service. Id. (citing Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994)). Here, O’Neal moved the Court to effect service of process upon the defendants and the Court will grant the motion because he proceeds IFP. However, O’Neal provided addresses for some but not all of the defendants. Further, O’Neal provided these addresses over two years ago when this case was in the pre-screening stage. Therefore, the Court will require O’Neal to fill out a USM-285 form for each defendant and return those forms to the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court will then use those forms to issues summonses for defendants, and the U.S. Marshal can then attempt service. … Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff 15 copies of form USM-285. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must complete the USM-285 forms and return them to the Clerk of Court within 20 days from this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the completed USM-285 forms the Clerk of Court is directed to issue summonses for each defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to serve upon the U.S. } Marshal a copy of this order, plaintiff's completed USM-285 forms, the issued summonses, and the third amended complaint (ECF No. 15). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the documents from the Clerk of Court, the U.S. Marshal is directed, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), to attempt to serve each defendant with the complaint and that defendant’s respective summons. DATED: December 4, 2020. pr la WEEP BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

O'Neal v. Zurich Insurance Company Inc., (D. Nev. 2020).

O'Neal v. Zurich Insurance Company Inc. (O'Neal v. Zurich Insurance Company Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Terrance Wayne Porter
14 F.3d 18 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
689 F.3d 680 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
762 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Puett v. Blandford
912 F.2d 270 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)