Washington v. Division of Welfare and Supportive Services - Nevada, Cambridge

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MELVIN WASHINGTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01035-ART-DJA 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 6 v. (ECF Nos. 17, 19) 7 Division of Welfare and Supportive Services – Nevada, Cambridge, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Melvin Washington sued the State of Nevada under the Americans 12 with Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination at the Cambridge office of Nevada’s 13 Division of Welfare. (ECF No. 6.) Washington failed to perfect service in this 14 lawsuit and another lawsuit based on the same underlying conduct, and the 15 other lawsuit was dismissed. (See ECF No. 19 at 2.) 16 The State of Nevada seeks to dismiss Washington’s complaint with 17 prejudice because he failed to timely perfect service of process. Since the filing of 18 that motion, Washington has perfected service. (See ECF No. 28 at 1.) The State 19 argues that Washington’s delay in perfecting service still merits dismissal. (Id.; 20 ECF Nos. 19, 28.) 21 “District courts have broad discretion to extend time for service.” Efaw v. 22 Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Moore v. Agency for Int'l 23 Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Pro se litigants are allowed more 24 latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in service of 25 process and pleadings”). Washington is proceeding pro se and has attempted 26 proper service over the preceding two years. (See e.g., ECF Nos. 7, 26.) 27 Accordingly, the Court denies the State’s motion to dismiss. 28 Washington also seeks summary judgment on his ADA claim. (See ECF No. 1 || 17.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Local Rule 56-1 require a plaintiff 2 || seeking summary judgment to present evidence showing absence of a material 3 || dispute of fact. As the State points out, Washington did not attach any evidence 4 || to his motion. (See ECF No. 18.) Additionally, this case has not yet reached 5 || discovery or responsive pleading outside of service of process. Accordingly, the 6 || Court denies Washington’s motion. (ECF No. 17.) 7 Conclusion 8 Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 19.) 9 The Court also denies Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 10 || 17.) 11 12 13 DATED THIS 14th day of July 2025. 14 15 4 jlosect Je 16 ANNE R. TRAUM 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28