Ziegler v. Correctional Industries

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JEFFREY SCOTT ZIEGLER, 9 Plaintiff, No. 3:20-CV-05288-SAB 10 v. ORDER DENYING KELLY DOWNING, correctional officer; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO N’TACIA MONTOUGE, correctional SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING PLAINTIFF IN FORMA officer; JODIE M. WRIGHT; SCOTT PAUPERIS LIGHT, P.A.C.; THOMAS L’HEUREUX; SARA SMITH-KARINKO, M.C.; SHERIDEN ROBERTS, R.N. 2; MARGARET GILBERT; TAMMY SCHOOLEY-ESKOTEE; SHANE L.

19 EVANS, H.S.M. 2/C.P.M.; RYAN HERRINGTON, M.D./F.M.D.; KEITH PARRIS, H.S.M. 1/H.S.M. 2; DAN L.

22 VAN OGLE; ROBERT SCHREIBER, A.D.A./C.P.M.; JAMIE NEWTON, R.N.

24 3; ERIN LYSTAD, P.A.C.; LEELAND ROGGE, M.D./I.M.E.; SASHA BANGS, P.A.C.; and DENNIS DAHNE, 27 Defendants.

1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause, ECF No. 95. Plaintiff is pro se. Defendants Kelly Downing, N’Tacia Montouge, Jodie M. Wright, Scott Light, Thomas L’Heureux, Sara Smith-Karinko, Sheridan Roberts, Margaret Gilbert, Tammy Schooley-Eskotee, Shane L. Evans, Ryan Herrington, Keith Parris, Dan. L. Van Ogle, Robert Schreiber, Jamie Newton, and Erin Lystad are represented by Sarah Brisbin. Defendants Leeland Rogge, Sasha Bangs and Dennis Dahne have not made appearances. The motion was considered without oral argument.

9 First, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is not clear on the Court docket for the above-captioned case. The Court now grants in forma pauperis to Plaintiff Ziegler, for clarity on the record.

12 Second, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Show Cause seeking an explanation from defense counsel Ms. Brisbin as to why Defendants Bangs and Dahne and Nathan Montambo have not responded to filings. Ms. Brisbin does not represent Defendants Bangs or Dahne. As such, she is not responsible for their service or 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 been issued. If Plaintiff wishes to prosecute a case against Mr. Montambo, he must amend his complaint.

20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is required to direct service on defendants for plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court directed service on Defendants. ECF Nos. 47 and 81.

23 Using the last known address provided by the Department of Corrections, the Court issued service by first-class mail to Defendant Bangs. The Court received no reply, the summons was returned as “undeliverable”, and there is no confirmation she was served.

27 Defendant Dahne, at last inquiry, was employed by the Department of Corrections but was on medical leave at the time the summons was sent. It is unclear if he has returned, and Ms. Brisbin on behalf of the Department of Corrections could not waive service of process because they did not receive a reply from Mr. Dahne after sending him the necessary documents via mail.

4 The Court made the necessary attempts to contact Defendants Bangs and Dahne, as requested and required. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). But, through no fault of Ms. Brisbin, the information provided by the Department of Corrections to contact each proved ineffective, and Plaintiff did not provide the Court information for how to contact either Defendant. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421–22 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis must provide accurate and sufficient information for the Court to effectuate service and avoid dismissal of unserved defendants), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

13 If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the Court will allow a second service of process for unserved Defendants.

15 // // // // // // // // // // // // // // 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. by Zao Spratley Ges 15 United States District Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE