Arrendondo v. Neven et al

Filing 76

ORDER that Plaintiff file proof of service of the summons and complaint on the remaining defendants no later than 7/2/12. Failure to do so will result in his complaint against the remaining defendants being dismissed. Furthermore, to the extend that any remaining defendants were served with the summons and complaint, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause no later than 7/2/12 why the claims should not be dismissed against those defendants in accordance with the Court's prior Order 65 . Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 6/13/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

ARMIS ARRENDONDO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:09-CV-02158-KJD-VCF

D.W. NEVEN, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

On March 20, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss (#23) and motions for

17

summary judgment (#25/49). Currently, the only remaining defendants are individuals who have not

18

been served with the summons and complaint. On October 25, 2011, the magistrate judge granted

19

(#52) Plaintiff’s motion for service by the U.S. Marshal’s Service. The State of Nevada Attorney

20

General’s Office (“the AG”) had identified several defendants – Nielson, Robinson, Saavaneras,

21

Atkin St. Rose Lavonne, Graham, and Shaulis – whom it could not accept service for because they

22

were no longer employed by the State of Nevada. However, the AG did identify (#22) the last

23

known address of those defendants. Copies of the amended complaint were forwarded to the U.S.

24

Marshal’s Service with appropriate summonses which contained the last known address of the

25

defendants. However, despite the Court’s order, Plaintiff apparently sent USM form 285 to the

26

Marshal’s Service for service on the identified defendants containing only the address at High Desert

1

State Prison (#60/61/62/63/64). Plaintiff did this despite knowing that the AG had admitted that the

2

defendants no longer worked there. Plaintiff has never returned the executed summons which

3

contained the last known addresses.

4

Furthermore, a different set of defendants were identified in documents attached to the

5

motions for summary judgment and Plaintiff moved to have these defendants – Officers Smith,

6

Werlinger, Harrison, Mahon, Engstrom, and Barth – also served by the Marshal’s Service. The

7

magistrate judge granted (#52) that request and ordered that the Clerk of the Court copy the amended

8

complaint to be forwarded to the U.S. Marshal’s Service to be served on the AG. However, Plaintiff

9

has never returned the executed summons demonstrating service was effected. Furthermore,

10

Plaintiff’s identical claims against other defendants have been dismissed. See Order, Doc. No. 65.

11

Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on the

12

remaining defendants no later than July 2, 2012. Failure to do so will result in his complaint against

13

the remaining defendants being dismissed. Furthermore, to the extent that any remaining defendants

14

were served with the summons and complaint, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause no later than July 2,

15

2012 why the claims should not be dismissed against those defendants in accordance with the

16

Court’s prior Order (#65).

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 13TH day of June 2012.

19
20
21
22

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
2