1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ROBERT LONNELL SMITH, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00215-MMD-CSD

4 Plaintiff Order

5 v. Re: ECF No. 15

6 SCOTT RASMUSSEN, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 Plaintiff has filed a motion to serve defendants Scott Rasmussen and Benjamin Rhodes 10 through alternative means. (ECF No. 15.) 11 On the USM-285 forms he submitted, Plaintiff listed the addresses for both defendants as 12 the Reno Police Department. The summons were returned unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) 13 Plaintiff asserts that “it is clear that the defendants are still employed at the address of service 14 attempts,” and he asks that he be allowed to serve them either by certified mail, by leaving the 15 summons and complaint with their supervisors, or by e-mail. (ECF No. 15.) 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), an individual may be served by: 17 (1) following state law for serving a summons … in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; 18 (2) doing any of the following: 19 (A) delivering a copy … to the individual personally; 20 (B) leaving a copy … at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with 21 someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or

22 (C) delivering a copy … to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. 23 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). 2 In addition to these methods, Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a)(1), Nevada allows for service by 3 alternative means if the traditional service methods are “impracticable,” and the plaintiff (1) 4 demonstrates he has undertaken due diligence to locate and serve the defendant, (2) provides the

5 defendant’s known or last known contact information, including email addresses, and (3) 6 explains why the proposed alternative service methods comport with due process. Nev. R. Civ.

.4(b)(1),(2). 8 “[T]he Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process, only that 9 the method selected be reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond.” 10 Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citation 11 omitted). 12 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the court to conclude that he has 13 undertaken due diligence to locate and serve the defendants. If the defendants cannot be served at 14 Reno Police Department, then Plaintiff must conduct his own investigation to try and locate the

15 defendants. See Peterson v. United States, No. EDCV 15-00143-AB (RAO),

10543986, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2017) (“Although plaintiff may not have access to public 17 records because of his incarceration, Plaintiff has not had someone else perform an appropriate 18 investigation into public records on his behalf.”). Plaintiff does not identify any efforts to locate 19 and serve the defendants. For example, he does not address whether he has solicited family or 20 friends or even a private investigator. Nor does Plaintiff identify the defendants’ supervisors or 21 provide the defendants’ last known contact information, including their email addresses. 22 The court appreciates this is a difficult task for an indigent inmate to undertake. However, 23 the statute places the burden on the party seeking to conduct service by alternative means to 1}| show that he has been diligent in his attempts to locate and serve the defendants. For these 2|| reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for substitute service (ECF No. 15) is DENIED WITHOUT 3] PREJUDICE. 4 IS SO ORDERED. 6 7|| Dated: November 6, 2025 CS oy Craig S. Denney 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23