Ponce v. Mortenson

District Court, D. Utah·Decided July 17, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-00273·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

LAZARO PONCE, ORDER AND MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, DECISION REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS

v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-273-TC BART MORTENSON, et al., Judge Tena Campbell Defendants.

Plaintiff Lazaro Ponce, a Utah inmate, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on a review of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17), the court concludes that official service of process is warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.”). Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the court requests waiver of service from the Defendants. The court now ORDERS as follows: 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court requests waiver of service from the following defendants: (a) Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) warden Bart Mortenson; (b) UDOC sergeant Cassidy Ross; (c) UDOC officer Luna; (d) UDOC mailroom worker C. Trujillo; (e) Purgatory Correctional Facility (PCF) deputy Carlos Peralta; and (f) PCF chief Trevor Benson. (See ECF No. 17 at 2–4.) 2. The court directs the Clerk of Court to mail the following items to these defendants as designated below: a. As to UDOC defendants, i. Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; 2 copies of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO form 399; and copy of the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 17), and this Order

to: Utah Department of Corrections, Att’n: Correctional Program Coordinator--3rd Floor DPO Suite, 14717 South Minuteman Drive, Draper, Utah 84020. ii. 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, Utah 84114-0856. b. As to PCF defendants, i. Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; 2 copies of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO

form 399; and copy of the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 17), and this Order to: Clerk, Washington County, Attention Clerk Auditor, 111 E. Tabernacle St. George, UT 84770; or ryan.sullivan@washco.ut.gov. 3. The Defendants are cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires the Defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of summons and complaint. Under Rule 4, if the Defendants do not waive service, after being asked by the Court to do so on Mr. Ponce’s behalf, the Defendants must bear service costs unless they show good cause for not signing and returning the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if the 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 when the waiver request was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3) (allowing more days to respond than would be allowed if formal summons service is necessary). The Defendants must read the statement at the waiver form’s end 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 the 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. If the Defendants do not execute waivers, attorney(s) for the Defendants must file a notice with reasons for not giving a waiver. A notice is due 30 days from the date a request was sent. 5. The Defendants shall answer the Amended Complaint, observing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the following litigation schedule: a. If the Defendants assert the affirmative defense of Mr. Ponce’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies in a grievance process, the 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 report1 limited to the exhaustion issue; and,

1 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. 1987), the Tenth Circuit explained the nature and function of a Martinez report, stating:

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 iii. within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment motion, with supporting memorandum. b. If the Defendants challenge the complaint’s bare allegations, the Defendants shall, within 60 days of the date waiver was requested, file a motion

to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). c. If the Defendants choose not to rely on an exhaustion defense and want to address the complaint’s allegations, the 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 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 the Defendants want to seek relief otherwise contemplated under procedural rules, the Defendants must file an appropriate motion within 90 days

of filing an answer. 6. Mr. Ponce must respond to the Martinez report within 30 days after it is filed. Mr. Ponce must expect that Martinez reports may “be used for their truth against a plaintiff if the plaintiff has been warned that failing to respond to the Martinez report could lead to that result.” Ortiz v. Torgensen, 857 F. App’x 419, 426–27 (10th Cir. 2021). This order is the warning.

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. 7. Mr. Ponce must respond to a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion within 30 days after it is filed. For Mr. Ponce’s information and convenience, the court has attached the procedural rules governing summary judgment practice. 8. Within 14 days after Mr. Ponce files his opposition, the Defendants shall file a

reply brief. 9.

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

Ponce v. Mortenson, (D. Utah 2024).

Ponce v. Mortenson (Ponce v. Mortenson) — 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)