Richard Scott, V Dr. Haven

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: May 5, 2026
• Docket: 60429-9
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

May 5, 2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II RICHARD SCOTT, No. 60429-9-II

Appellant,

v.

DR. HAVENS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Respondent.

GLASGOW, J.—Richard Scott is a resident at a Special Commitment Center (SCC). Scott

filed a lawsuit against Dr. Deborah Havens,1 a doctor at the SCC, alleging that she committed

medical malpractice. The trial court dismissed Scott’s case after finding that Scott failed to

properly serve Dr. Havens and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Scott

appeals, arguing that he served Dr. Havens by publication and that the trial court erred by finding

that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

On July 24, 2024, Scott filed a lawsuit against Dr. Deborah Havens, the medical director

at the SCC, alleging that Dr. Havens had committed medical malpractice against him. Scott

claimed that Dr. Havens put him at risk of serious illness or death by instructing that Scott be

required to eat in the cafeteria rather than in his unit. Scott also claimed that Dr. Havens put Scott

in harm’s way by clearing him to move out of the medical unit and into a different unit at the SCC

1 In the record provided to this court, the case captions refer to respondent as “Dr. Haven.” This opinion uses the correct spelling of respondent’s name, “Havens,” throughout. No. 60429-9-II

where he may have to use stairs. Scott claimed he should receive $1,500 for every day he was not

allowed to eat in his unit and $1,500 for every day he was not housed in the medical unit.

Dr. Havens moved to dismiss Scott’s suit under CR 12(b)(2), (5), and (6), arguing that

Scott had failed to properly serve her under CR 4(d) and failed to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. In support of her motion to dismiss, Dr. Havens explained that on November 12,

2024, she found an envelope on her desk at work addressed to “‘Dr. Hamill’” from “‘R.R. Scott

CEO Liberty Puzzle Publications PO Box 88600 Steilacoom, WA 98388.’” Clerk’s Papers at 46.

Inside the envelope was a document captioned as “Amended Malpractice” with the cause number

of Scott’s malpractice lawsuit. The document listed “Richard Scott Box 88600 Steilacoom, WA

98388” as the intended signatory but there was no signature on the document. Dr. Havens was

aware that “Liberty Puzzle Publications” was a “‘newsletter’” Scott produced at the SCC. Id. The

envelope was not stamped. Dr. Havens had not received any other communication about the

lawsuit from Scott or anyone on his behalf prior to filing her motion to dismiss.

The trial court granted Dr. Havens’ motion to dismiss all of Scott’s claims.

ANALYSIS

Scott argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims based on improper service

and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As an initial matter, the State argues

that we should not consider any of Scott’s claims because he fails to present any facts or legal

arguments to support them.

We hold an unrepresented litigant to the same standard as an attorney. Batten v. Abrams,

28 Wn. App. 737, 739 n.1, 626 P.2d 984 (1981). An appellant’s brief must contain “argument in

support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and references

2 No. 60429-9-II

to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6). And “[p]assing treatment of an issue or lack of

reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial consideration.” Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90

Wn. App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998).

Scott’s brief largely falls short of the standard required by RAP 10.3(a)(6), and this alone

justifies our decision to affirm. Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of

Scott’s claim regarding improper service.

We review de novo whether service of process was proper. Scanlan v. Townsend, 181

Wn.2d 838, 847, 336 P.3d 1155 (2014). “Serving a summons and complaint commences a civil

action and establishes a trial court’s jurisdiction over the action.” Spencer v. Franklin Hills Health-

Spokane, LLC, 3 Wn.3d 165, 170, 548 P.3d 193 (2024). “The plaintiff bears the initial burden to

prove a prima facie case of sufficient service” upon the defendant. Scanlan, 181 Wn.2d at 847.

“Personal service must be accomplished according to statutory procedure.” Spencer, 3

Wn.3d at 170; CR 4(d)(2). CR 4(d)(1) requires that the summons and complaint be served together.

RCW 4.28.080(14) provides that a person may be served personally or by leaving a copy of the

summons at the house of his or her abode with some person of suitable age and discretion who is

a resident.

Scott does not dispute that Dr. Havens was never personally served. See Br. of Appellant

at 1. He also does not allege that he served Dr. Havens by mail. Rather, he contends that Dr. Havens

was served by publication.

RCW 4.28.100 authorizes service by publication only in limited circumstances. Strict

compliance with the statute is required for jurisdiction to attach. Pascua v. Heil, 126 Wn. App.

520, 526, 108 P.3d 1253 (2005). The plain language of the statute requires an individual to first

3 No. 60429-9-II

file an affidavit with the clerk of the court stating the reasons why service by publication is

necessary. RCW 4.28.100. Service by publication is authorized only upon the filing of an affidavit.

RCW 4.28.100.

Here, Scott did not file an affidavit with the court. Scott did not commence service by

publication according to the proper statutory procedure. Nor does he establish a prima facie case

showing sufficient service. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err by dismissing his

case for failure to properly serve Dr. Havens. Because we affirm based on improper service, we

do not address Scott’s argument regarding whether he stated a claim upon which relief could be

granted.

CONCLUSION

We affirm.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

GLASGOW, J. We concur:

CRUSER, J.

PRICE, A.C.J.