Montague v. Jackson et al
Filing
29
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 26 Montague's Motion for Time to Serve Defendants and Request for Service by Marshal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must mail to Montague a blank summons form and a blank USM-285 form, along with a copy of this order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the proposed summons and USM-285 form from Montague, the clerk of court must complete the forms with Dr. Racoma's last-known address that wa s filed under seal at ECF No. 20 ; issue the summons; and deliver the summons, USM-285, a copy of 6 the first amended complaint, and a copy of this order to the US Marshal for service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 28 Montague's motion to com pel is DENIED without prejudice. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/10/2019. (Summons Form, USM-285 Form attached for distribution P via LCC Law Library) (Attachments: # 1 Summons Form, # 2 USM-285 Form) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Copy to P via mail per Order - MR)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
HAROLD E. MONTAGUE,
7
Plaintiff,
ORDER
8
9
Case No. 2:16-cv-01680-JAD-CWH
v.
JACKSON, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
Presently before the court is Nevada state-prison inmate Harold E. Montague’s Motion for
12
13
Time to Serve Defendants and Request for Service by Marshal (ECF No. 26), filed on November
14
28, 2018. Defendant Laurie Hoover filed a notice of non-opposition (ECF No. 27) on December
15
12, 2018.
Also before the court is Montague’s Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 28), filed on
16
17
December 31, 2018.
18
I.
19
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE
Montague requests additional time to serve the defendants due to side effects Montague is
20
suffering from psychotherapy and psychotropic drugs. He also requests that the United States
21
Marshal assist him with service. Along with his motion, Montague provides proposed
22
summonses for Dr. Laurie Hoover, the State of Nevada, Jackson, Racoma, Renee Baker, and the
23
S.E.R.T. team at High Desert.
24
In its screening order, the court allowed Montague’s Eighth Amendment excessive force
25
and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims to proceed against Dr. Hoover and Dr. Racoma.
26
(Screening Order (ECF No. 9) at 6-7.) The court dismissed all other claims without prejudice.
27
(Id.) As a result, Dr. Hoover and Dr. Racoma are the only defendants in this case. The court
28
denies Montague’s motion to the extent he seeks to serve any other defendants.
1
The Nevada Attorney General’s office accepted service on behalf of Dr. Hoover. (Notice
2
(ECF No. 19).) Thus, to the extent Montague requests assistance serving Dr. Hoover, his motion
3
is denied as moot because she has already been served and appeared in this case.
The Nevada Attorney General’s Office did not accept service on behalf of Dr. Racoma,
4
5
but it provided his last-known address under seal. (Notices (ECF Nos. 20, 21).) Thus, to the
6
extent Montague requests additional time and assistance serving Dr. Racoma, his motion is
7
granted. Montague has an additional 45 days to serve Dr. Racoma. Given that Montague is
8
proceeding in forma pauperis, the court will order the United States Marshal to assist him with
9
service on Dr. Racoma under Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court
10
further will order the clerk of court to mail Montague the paperwork required for the United
11
States Marshal to assist with service.
12
II.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
Montague moves to compel five categories of documents. Under Rule 37(a)(1) of the
13
14
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to compel must include a certification that the movant
15
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the other party to resolve the dispute
16
without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Additionally, Local Rule 26-7(c) provides that:
17
discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good
faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion,
and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-andconfer conference about each disputed discovery request.
18
19
20
LR 26-7(c). In cases involving an incarcerated individual appearing pro se, the meet-and-confer
21
requirement may be satisfied through written communication. LR IA 1-3(f)(1). Given that
22
Montague does not certify he met and conferred with defendant’s counsel before filing his
23
motion, the motion to compel is denied without prejudice.
24
III.
25
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Montague’s Motion for Time to Serve Defendants
26
and Request for Service by Marshal (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It
27
is granted to the extent that (1) his deadline to serve Dr. Racoma is extended to February 25,
28
2019, and (2) the court will order the United States Marshal to assist Montague with service on
Page 2 of 3
1
Dr. Racoma under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). The motion is denied in all other
2
respects.
3
4
5
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must mail to Montague a blank
summons form and a blank USM-285 form, along with a copy of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Montague must complete the forms as to Dr. Racoma
to the extent he can and file them with the court by January 31, 2019.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the proposed summons and USM-285
8
form from Montague, the clerk of court must complete the forms with Dr. Racoma’s last-known
9
address that was filed under seal at ECF No. 20; issue the summons; and deliver the summons,
10
USM-285, a copy of the first amended complaint (ECF No. 6), and a copy of this order to the
11
United States Marshal for service.
12
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Montague’s motion to compel (ECF No. 28) is
DENIED without prejudice.
14
15
DATED: January 10, 2019
16
17
18
19
C.W. HOFFMAN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?