Ziegler v. Correctional Industries

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 29, 2024
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05288
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 JEFFREY SCOTT ZIEGLER, 9 Plaintiff, No. 3:20-CV-05288-SAB 10 v. ORDER DENYING 11 KELLY DOWNING, correctional officer; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 12 N’TACIA MONTOUGE, correctional SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING PLAINTIFF IN FORMA 13 officer; JODIE M. WRIGHT; SCOTT PAUPERIS 14 LIGHT, P.A.C.; THOMAS L’HEUREUX; 15 SARA SMITH-KARINKO, M.C.; 16 SHERIDEN ROBERTS, R.N. 2; 17 MARGARET GILBERT; TAMMY 18 SCHOOLEY-ESKOTEE; SHANE L. 19 EVANS, H.S.M. 2/C.P.M.; RYAN 20 HERRINGTON, M.D./F.M.D.; KEITH 21 PARRIS, H.S.M. 1/H.S.M. 2; DAN L. 22 VAN OGLE; ROBERT SCHREIBER, 23 A.D.A./C.P.M.; JAMIE NEWTON, R.N. 24 3; ERIN LYSTAD, P.A.C.; LEELAND 25 ROGGE, M.D./I.M.E.; SASHA BANGS, 26 P.A.C.; and DENNIS DAHNE, 27 Defendants. 28 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause, ECF No. 95. Plaintiff 2 is pro se. Defendants Kelly Downing, N’Tacia Montouge, Jodie M. Wright, Scott 3 Light, Thomas L’Heureux, Sara Smith-Karinko, Sheridan Roberts, Margaret 4 Gilbert, Tammy Schooley-Eskotee, Shane L. Evans, Ryan Herrington, Keith 5 Parris, Dan. L. Van Ogle, Robert Schreiber, Jamie Newton, and Erin Lystad are 6 represented by Sarah Brisbin. Defendants Leeland Rogge, Sasha Bangs and Dennis 7 Dahne have not made appearances. The motion was considered without oral 8 argument. 9 First, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is not clear on the 10 Court docket for the above-captioned case. The Court now grants in forma 11 pauperis to Plaintiff Ziegler, for clarity on the record. 12 Second, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Show Cause seeking an explanation 13 from defense counsel Ms. Brisbin as to why Defendants Bangs and Dahne and 14 Nathan Montambo have not responded to filings. Ms. Brisbin does not represent 15 Defendants Bangs or Dahne. As such, she is not responsible for their service or 16 defense beyond the last known addresses she provided the Court. 17 Nathan Montambo is currently not a party to this case, and no summons has 18 been issued. If Plaintiff wishes to prosecute a case against Mr. Montambo, he must 19 amend his complaint. 20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is 21 required to direct service on defendants for plaintiffs proceeding in forma 22 pauperis. The Court directed service on Defendants. ECF Nos. 47 and 81. 23 Using the last known address provided by the Department of Corrections, 24 the Court issued service by first-class mail to Defendant Bangs. The Court received 25 no reply, the summons was returned as “undeliverable”, and there is no 26 confirmation she was served. 27 Defendant Dahne, at last inquiry, was employed by the Department of 28 Corrections but was on medical leave at the time the summons was sent. It is 1 unclear if he has returned, and Ms. Brisbin on behalf of the Department of 2 Corrections could not waive service of process because they did not receive a reply 3 from Mr. Dahne after sending him the necessary documents via mail. 4 The Court made the necessary attempts to contact Defendants Bangs and 5 Dahne, as requested and required. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th 6 Cir. 1990). But, through no fault of Ms. Brisbin, the information provided by the 7 Department of Corrections to contact each proved ineffective, and Plaintiff did not 8 provide the Court information for how to contact either Defendant. See Walker v. 9 Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421–22 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding a plaintiff proceeding in 10 forma pauperis must provide accurate and sufficient information for the Court to 11 effectuate service and avoid dismissal of unserved defendants), overruled on other 12 grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 13 If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the Court will allow a second 14 service of process for unserved Defendants. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause, ECF No. 95, is DENIED. 5 3. Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion to Show Cause, ECF No. 96, is STRICKEN as moot. 4. If Plaintiff amends his complaint, the Court shall order service on unserved Defendants. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and provide copies to pro se Plaintiff and counsel. 11 DATED this 29th day of January 2024. 12 by Zao Spratley Ges 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE