Edwards v. Clark County et al

Filing 16

ORDER that the Clerk shall issue a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records at CCDC and deliver the subpoena, the summons, complaint and a copy of this order to the USMS for service. Within 20 days after receiving the information from CCDC, the USMS shall use the information provided by CCDC to attempt to serve the summonses and complaint on defendants Mondora, Simeon, Hightower, Reyes, Mitchell, and Scott. The USMS shall provide Edwards with Forms USM-285 (listing these defendants' ; first and last names, and not listing their addresses) indicating whether service was effected. Edwards shall file the USM-285 forms within 10 days after receiving them from theUSMS. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/9/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

Ronnie Edwards,

10

Plaintiff

11
12

v.
Officer Hightower et al.,

13

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01316-JAD-CWH
Order Granting Extension for Service of
Process and Issuing Subpoenas Duces Tecum

Defendants

14
15

This civil-rights action arises out of sanitation and deliberate-indifference violations that

16

plaintiff Ronnie Edwards alleges he suffered while a pretrial detainee in the Clark County Detention

17

Center (“CCDC”). This Court’s January 14, 2014, screening order allowed four claims to proceed

18

against defendants Hightower, Reyes, Mitchell, Dr. Mondora, Nurse Katrina, Scott, and John Does 1

19

through 4.1 Summonses were issued as to all named defendants; all six were returned unexecuted.2

20

Edwards moves for an extension of time to conduct discovery that will allow him to properly

21

identify and serve these defendants.3 Having reviewed the record and law, the Court issues the

22
23
24
25

1

See Doc. 6 at 10 (screening complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

26

2

Docs. 8, 12–14.

27

3

Doc. 15.

28

1

1
2

following subpoena duces tecum on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“Metro”).4
The Court’s screening order directed service on defendants Hightower, Reyes, Mitchell, Dr.

3

Mondora, Nurse Katrina, and Scott and ordered that summonses for the defendants be delivered to

4

the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) for service.5 Edwards was allowed 30 days to

5

provide the USMS with USM-285 forms for service.6 Within 20 days of receiving copies of the

6

USM-285 forms from the USMS that showed whether service was accomplished, Edwards was

7

required to file a notice with the Court stating which defendants were successfully served and which

8

defendants were unsuccessfully served.7 If he wished to attempt service again on any unserved

9

defendant, he was directed to file a motion that identified the unserved defendant(s) and specified a

10

more detailed name and/or address for each defendant, or specified if another service method should

11

be attempted.8

12

On May 2, 2014, the USMS returned all summonses unexecuted.9 As Edwards writes in his

13

motion for extension, the unexecuted summonses state with regard to Dr. Raymond Mondora and

14

Nurse Katrina Simeon that “LVMPD does not accept process for contractors.”10 Mondora’s and

15

Simeon’s full names appear on their first summonses.11 For the remaining four defendants, the

16

summonses indicate that “LVMPD does not accept process without proper identifiers.”12 Yet

17
18
19

4

The Court finds this motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument. LR 78-2. In
addition, the Court liberally construes all pro-se motions and pleadings. See Bernhardt v. L.A. Cnty.,
339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

5

Doc. 6 at 10–1.

21

6

Id.

22

7

Id.

23

8

Id.

24

9

Doc. 27.

25

10

Doc. 13 at 1–4; Doc. 15 at 2.

26

11

Doc. 13 at 1–4.

27

12

Doc. 13 at 5–12; Doc. 15 at 2.

28

2

1

Edwards provided a job description (Metro officer) and last name for Hightower—which is a

2

distinctive last name—and provided job descriptions, last names, and P numbers for Mitchell,

3

Reyes, and Scott on their summonses—but even these combinations of information did not suffice

4

for Metro.13 There is no indication that Metro made any effort to comply with the summonses and

5

identify its employees. Instead, it appears Metro refused service because none of the CCDC

6

defendants was identified in the wholly unspecified manner that Metro apparently prefers. The

7

summons notes further indicate that Metro is actually aware of Monora’s and Simeon’s identities

8

because they contract with Metro.

9

On June 6, 2014, Edwards filed notices of the defendants who were successfully served and

10

those who were not.14 The Court’s screening order allowed him 20 days to file this notice; he took

11

35 days.15 The Court liberally construes his notices as compliance with its screening-order

12

instructions regarding notice of the state of service on the defendants, but also warns Edwards that

13

he should take care to fully comply with court-ordered deadlines going forward. “Although we

14

construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”16

15

This Order examines the stall in service on the six defendants alleged to work at the CCDC.

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(A) authorizes the Court to issue a subpoena duces

17

tecum for production of documents or information.17 One of the rule’s purposes is “to facilitate

18

access outside the deposition procedure provided by Rule 30 to documents and other information in

19
20
21
13

Doc. 13 at 7, 9, 11.

22
14

23

Docs. 14. Edwards also filed a notice of concern regarding service on April 10, 2014, before
the USMS returned the unexecuted summons. Doc. 12.

24

15

25

16

26

Doc. 6 at 10–1.

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567
(9th Cir. 1987)).
17

27

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) (“As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to
produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection.”).

28

3

1

the possession of persons who are not parties.”18 “The non-party witness is subject to the same

2

scope of discovery under this rule as that person would be as a party to whom a request is addressed

3

pursuant to Rule 34.”19 Based upon this authority and on the foregoing facts, the Court orders that:
1.

4

The Clerk of Court shall issue a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records at

5

CCDC directing the custodian to provide the first and last names and last-known

6

addresses of the contractor defendants and Metro-employee defendants identified in

7

plaintiff’s complaint as: Mondora, Simeon, Hightower, Reyes, Mitchell, and Scott.
2.

8

The Clerk of Court shall deliver the subpoena duces tecum, the summons, complaint,
and a copy of this order to the USMS.

9
3.

10

The USMS shall serve the subpoenas duces tecum and a copy of this order on the
custodian of records at CCDC.

11
4.

12

The custodian of records shall respond to the subpoenas duces tecum within 14 days

13

of receipt. The custodian shall provide its response to the USMS, and the USMS

14

shall file these defendants’ first and last names and last-known addresses under seal.
5.

15

Within 20 days after receiving the information from CCDC, the USMS shall use the

16

information provided by CCDC to attempt to serve the summonses and complaint on

17

defendants Mondora, Simeon, Hightower, Reyes, Mitchell, and Scott. The USMS

18

shall provide Edwards with Forms USM-285 (listing these defendants’ first and last

19

names, and not listing their addresses) indicating whether service was effected.
6.

20

Edwards shall file the USM-285 forms within 10 days after receiving them from the
USMS.

21
22

...

23

...

24

...

25
18

26
27
28

Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45
advisory committee’s note) (internal quotation marks omitted).
19

Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note) (internal quotation marks omitted).
4

1

7.

If the USMS is unable to serve these defendants and Edwards wishes to have service

2

again attempted, he must file a motion with the Court within 20 days. His motion

3

must specify a more detailed name and/or address for each defendant, or whether

4

some other manner of service should be attempted. Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal

5

Rules of Civil Procedure, service must be accomplished within 120 days from the

6

date this order is entered.

7

8.

Edwards is reminded that he must comply with court-ordered deadlines. If he does

8

not timely comply with all aspects of this Order, it may result in dismissal of this

9

action.

10

DATED July 9, 2014.

11
12
13
14

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5