White v. King County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KILLIAN WHITE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00618-JHC 8

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 Plaintiff, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 10 v. 11 KING COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE et al.,

12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification Regarding this 15 Court’s Show Cause Order and Leave to Serve Defendants. Dkt. # 71. Plaintiff asks the Court 16 “for leave to re-serve the Defendants by RCW 4.28.080(1) and K.C.C. 2.04.010(B) or by 17 alternative means if the court deems it proper.” Id. at 4. Defendants do not oppose this motion 18 for clarification but have moved to dismiss asserting that Plaintiff failed to properly effectuate 19 service. Dkt. # 68 at 4–5. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in 20 part Plaintiff’s motion. 21 The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause whether he properly served King County and 22 its officers in their individual capacities and, if not, whether he had good cause for failure to do 23 so. Dkt. # 41 at 3. In his response to the show cause order, Plaintiff acknowledges “lack of 24 1 personal service on the named Defendants” and says, “the court may either dismiss their 2 individual capacities or allow the Plaintiffs to attempt to serve them in their individual capacities 3 in the above requested seven-day window.” Dkt. # 42 at 4.

4 Thus, the Court DISMISSES officers Tyler Hunt, Jeffrey Petrenchak, Enrico Donaglia, 5 Steven Minters, and Mitzi Johanknecht (King County officer Defendants) in their individual 6 capacities without prejudice. 7 As for service on King County and its officers in their official capacities, the parties agree 8 that service can be made under King County Code 2.04.010, which provides: 9 A. For the purpose of service of summons on King County under provisions of RCW 4.28.080, the person to be served is the manager of the records and licensing 10 services division.

11 B. The manager of the records and licensing division shall accept service by:

12 1. Email to kcserviceofsummons@kingcounty.gov; or

13 2. In person Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the King County Customer Service Center, 201 South Jackson Street, Room 202, Seattle, 14 Washington, 98104.

15 Dkt. ## 42 at 3; 68 at 5. 16 Plaintiff acknowledges that he has not served King County by email or through personal 17 delivery at the above address. Dkt. # 42 at 2–3. But he contends that he has good cause because 18 his process server had properly served King County by email for his parents who are the 19 plaintiffs in a separate case arising out of similar facts.1 Dkt. # 78 at 14–15 (citing White v. King 20 County Sheriff’s Off., 2:23-cv-01761-JHC, at Dkt. # 22-1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2024)); see also 21 Dkt. # 42 at 2–3. Plaintiff says that he properly relied on his process server and was unaware of 22

23 1 Plaintiff also contends that the King County Sheriff’s Office may be able to accept its own service. Dkt. # 42 at 3. Because Plaintiff cites no authority for this proposition, the Court declines to 24 consider it. 1 exactly where his process server effectuated service until the server provided his declaration on 2 October 9, 2024. Dkt. # 42 at 2–3. Plaintiff also says that because “[t]he statute of limitations 3 for filing has already been passed,” he will be unable to seek redress if his action is dismissed

4 without prejudice. Id. at 4. Plaintiff repeats both contentions in the present motion. Dkt. # 71. 5 Even if Plaintiff has not shown good cause for failure to properly serve Defendants, the 6 Court concludes that a limited extension is warranted. See Sauve v. City of Snoqualmie, 2025 7 WL 692131, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2025) (“[E]ven absent a showing of good cause, a 8 district court may utilize its ‘broad’ discretion to extend the time for service under Rule 4(m).”) 9 (quoting In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001)). “In making extension decisions 10 under Rule 4(m) a district court may consider factors like a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to 11 the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Cooper v. Whatcom Cnty., 2021 12 WL 243399, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 25, 2021) (quoting Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041

13 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted)). To be sure, Plaintiff has received a 14 significant extension to serve Defendants.2 But Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s assertion 15 that if his action is dismissed, he will be unable to pursue relief due to the statute of limitations 16 for his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 “There is a strong public policy in favor of resolving 17

18 2 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on February 6, 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Dkt. # 13. This case was transferred to this district on May 2, 2024, id., and, following 19 internal transfers between courts in this district, was assigned to this Court on May 20, 2024. Dkt. # 19. Plaintiff moved for service by the United States Marshals Service and for clarification, asking this Court 20 whether service is to be effectuated 90 days after May 2, 2024 or May 20, 2024. Dkt. # 20 at 2–3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for service by the United States Marshals Service and set September 3, 21 2024 as the deadline for service of process. Dkt. # 21. On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Defendants, who had failed to appear. Dkt. # 38. On October 3, 2024, the Court denied 22 Plaintiff’s motion for default and ordered him to show cause whether he had properly served Defendants. Dkt. # 41.

23 3 Defendants do not oppose the present motion. See LCR 7(b)(2) (failure to oppose a motion “may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit”). Nor did Defendants 24 challenge this assertion in their motion to dismiss, see Dkt. # 68 at 4–5, or in their brief opposing 1 cases on the merits” and this consideration carries “greater weight in § 1983 cases.” Cooper, 2 2021 WL 243399, at *3 (quoting Efraw, 473 F.3d at 1042 (Fletcher, J., dissenting)). Defendants 3 also received actual notice of this case on October 18, 2024, when this Court ordered the parties

4 to submit briefing addressing whether the Court should consolidate this case with another, 5 similar case. Dkt. # 45; White v. King County Sheriff’s Off., 2:23-cv-01761-JHC, at Dkt. # 62 6 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2024). This was only 15 days after the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 7 cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to properly effectuate service. Dkt. 8 # 41. And Defendants have been properly served in another case involving similar facts, White 9 v. King County Sheriff’s Off., 2:23-cv-01761-JHC, at Dkt. # 22-1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2024), 10 since December 2023. Thus, Defendants would not be unduly prejudiced by a limited extension. 11 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave until April 9, 2024 to serve King County and its 12 officers in their official capacities. If Plaintiff fails to timely serve Defendants with process, the

13 Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. 14 Dated this 2nd day of April, 2025. 15 16 a John H. Chun 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23

consolidation of this case and another, related case, White v. King County Sheriff’s Off., 2:23-cv-01761- 24 JHC, at Dkt. # 62 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2024).