McDermott v. Potter et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 13 Pltf's Motion for waiver of service by Judge Robert S. Lasnik and GRANTS the Request to Amend the Complaint. (cc: pltf L. McDermott).(CL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE - 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LANCE P. McDERMOTT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. POTTER, et al., Defendants. Case No. C09-0776RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE; GRANTING REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for waiver of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(4). The rule permitting a waiver of service, however, is inapplicable in this case because plaintiff has not sued an "individual, corporation, or association." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Rather, he has sued government entities; serving government entities is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). Plaintiff must follow the procedure set forth in that rule to effect service on the defendants in this case. Therefore, plaintiff's request for a waiver of service (Dkt. #13) is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion also requests to name Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, as a defendant. Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit him to do so once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Therefore, plaintiff may serve and file an amended complaint that includes all of his allegations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and adds Attorney General Holder as a defendant. If filed, the amended complaint will supercede the original complaint. DATED this 27th day of July, 2009. A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE - 2

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?