Williams v. Arbon

District Court, D. Utah·Decided January 24, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-00175·Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

CURTIS SCOTT WILLIAMS,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiffs, ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

v. Case No. 1:22-CV-175 TS RYAN ARBON et al., District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

As an unrepresented inmate, Plaintiff filed this civil-rights suit, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2023), proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, see 28 id. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 7-8.) Having now screened the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 23), under its statutory review function,1 the Court concludes that official service of process is warranted for Defendants. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2023) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.").

1The screening statute reads: (a) Screening.—The court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. (b) Grounds for dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint— (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2023). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court requests waiver of service from the following Weber County defendants: Zachary Campbell, doctor; Chelsey Roth, nurse practitioner; and Stacey LNU, staff nurse.2 (ECF No. 23.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants Campbell, Roth, and Stacey LNU shall answer the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23.) (2) The Clerk of Court shall mail Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; copies of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO form 399; and

2 Counsel for fully named Weber County defendants must perform the limited discovery (using the AC's dates and descriptions of not-fully-named Defendant Stacey LNU's alleged roles in unconstitutional activities) necessary to determine the full name of Defendant Stacey LNU, whom Plaintiff has been unable to completely name. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821-22, 832 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Because [Plaintiff] is a prisoner he may not be in a position to identify the proper defendants, or all of them, in his complaint. . . . We think it is the duty of the district court to assist him, within reason, to make the necessary investigation. . . . [Plaintiff] should have the opportunity to engage in limited discovery to ascertain the identities of these staff members, whose conduct he has explicitly described."); Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997) (stating, before dismissing unidentified defendant due to inability to permit service of process, district court should have helped incarcerated pro se litigant with inquiry into unknown defendant's identity when plaintiff provided numerous details like officer's surname, assigned unit, and date and location of incident; and district court "may pursue any course that it deems appropriate to a further inquiry into the identity" of the unknown defendant); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (deciding, when plaintiff described with sufficient clarity the head of the . . . jail," that plaintiff's "description was sufficiently clear to allow service of process on the 'Chief'"); Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985) ("Rather than dismissing the claim, the court should have ordered disclosure of Officer Doe's identity by other defendants named and served or permitted the plaintiff to identify the officer through discovery."); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) ("[T]he plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds."); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1152-53 (4th Cir. 1978) ("A district court is not required to act as an advocate for a pro se litigant; but when such a litigant has alleged a cause of action which may be meritorious against a person or persons unknown, the district court should afford him a reasonable opportunity to determine the correct person or persons against whom the claim is asserted . . . ."). Once counsel has determined Defendant Stacey LNU's full name, counsel must follow the service directions contained in this Order. copies of the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 23), and this Order to Weber County defendants Campbell, Roth, and Stacey LNU, addressed as follows: Weber County Sheriff’s Office c/o Margie Shirts 1400 Depot Drive Ogden, UT 84401

(3) Defendants are cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires Defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of serving summons and complaint. Under Rule 4, if Defendants fail to waive service of summons, after being asked by the Court to do so on Plaintiff's behalf, Defendants must bear service costs unless good cause be shown for failing to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if 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 on which the waiver request was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). (This allows longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) Defendants must read the statement at the bottom of the waiver form 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 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) For every Defendant for whom service has been ordered but for whom a waiver has not been executed, attorneys for the entity at which service was tried for that defendant must file a notice listing the defendant for whom service has not been waived and the reasons a waiver has not been provided. This report is due 30 days from the date the Request was sent. (5) Defendants shall answer the Amended Complaint, observing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the following litigation schedule: (a) If Defendants assert the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a grievance process, 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 report3

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

Williams v. Arbon, (D. Utah 2024).

Williams v. Arbon (Williams v. Arbon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service
577 F.3d 816 (Seventh Circuit, 2009)
Gillespie v. Civiletti
629 F.2d 637 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Munz v. Parr
758 F.2d 1254 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)