WASHINGTON v. ELLIS et al

Filing 200

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 197 Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 10/17/2022. (mg)

Case 3:17-cv-07243-PGS-TJB Document 200 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 788

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RANDY WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.:
3:17-cv-7243-PGS-TJB

v.
CHARLES ELLIS, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ECF NO. 197

Defendants.
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Randy Washington’s pro se motion
appealing an Order issued by Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. (ECF No.
195). Evidently, Judge Bongiovanni denied Washington’s motion to compel
responses to written deposition questions propounded on Lieutenants Lysczak and
Zegarski of the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department. Judge Bongiovanni correctly
reasoned that the Lieutenants were not parties to the action, and counsel for the
other defendants had no obligation to serve them. Contrary to Judge Bongiovanni’s
ruling, Washington contends that the Lieutenants Lysczak and Zegarski are parties
to this action.
Although Judge Bongiovanni’s Order is correct, there are two prior orders
(ECF No. 11 and 48) signed by the undersigned which may have confused
Washington. On screening (May 15, 2018) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(i)(2)(B)),
Lieutenants Zegarski and Lysczak were dismissed within the body of a

Case 3:17-cv-07243-PGS-TJB Document 200 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 789

Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 11, ¶ 7) but the Order did not specifically
dismiss Zegarski and Lysczak, the Order only authorized the complaint to proceed
against other defendants. It states:
ORDERED that the excessive force claims against John
Doe Mercer County Sheriff’s Officers and the denial of
medical care claims against Charles Ellis, Sergeant Friel,
and Mercer County Correctional Center Employees shall
proceed; . . .
In addition, the Order further directed the Clerk to “issue summons and the United
States Marshal shall serve the summons, complaint and this Order upon” the
defendants. (28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).
Evidently, the language of the Order concerning the issuance of summons
was imprecise because the Clerk and the Marshals Office did not communicate
with Washington that he was required to submit U.S. Marshal Form No. 285 for
such service. As a result, ten months later (March 1, 2019), upon the request of the
Clerk’s Office, another Order (ECF No. 48) was entered. This Order directed the
Clerk to send a letter to Washington about the “procedure for completing Form 285
upon Defendants” which erroneously named Lieutenants Lysczak and Zegarski as
two of the defendants.
II.
The successful management and prosecution of litigation depends upon the
diligence and precision of Court personnel, including Judges, as well as the
adversarial system.

Case 3:17-cv-07243-PGS-TJB Document 200 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 790

Since a couple of minor errors occurred here, the appropriate course is to
realign the litigation on the proper course, to restate prior rulings for clarity, and to
communicate same to the parties including Washington.
ORDER
IT IS on this 17th day of October, 2022;
ORDERED that Lieutenants Lysczak and Zegarski are dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim as set forth in a prior Memorandum and Order
(ECF No. 11); and it is further
ORDERED that Washington may appeal the dismissal of Lieutenants
Lysczak and Zegarski as set forth in the Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 11)
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); and it is further
ORDERED that the appeal (ECF No. 197) of Judge Bongiovanni’s Order
(ECF No. 195) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve this Order upon Washington
by first class mail.

s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.