J.S. v. Kent School District

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [10] J.S., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01060-LK [11] Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND AND DENYING OTHER MOTIONS 13 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., [14] Defendants. [16] This matter comes before the Court on multiple motions from Plaintiff J.S., including [17] (1) Motion for Update of Status, Dkt. No. 21; (2) Motion for Revised Prayer of Relief, Dkt. No. [18] 22; (3) Motion Requesting a Receipt of All Mailed Documents, Dkt. No. 32; (4) Motion for [19] Sanction Against Defendant for Failure To Admit Proper Service, Dkt. No. 35; and [20] (5) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 40. [21] For the reasons set forth below, the Court construes the Motion for Revised Prayer of Relief [22] as a motion to file a second amended complaint and grants that motion. The Court denies the other [23] motions. [24] 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 J.S. was enrolled as a student in Kent School District between 2013 and 2019. Dkt. No. 6 3 at 12. In July 2024, J.S. filed a complaint against Defendants Kent School District, Kent School 4 District Superintendent Isreal Villa in his official capacity, and Covington Elementary School 5 Principal Ryan Pries in his individual capacity. Id. at 2. In his complaint, J.S. appeared to assert 6 violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the 7 Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), and 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony), as well as 8 several state law claims, including assault, false imprisonment, conspiracy, outrage, and child 9 abuse. Id. at 2, 4, 7 , 10–13. The Court dismissed J.S.’s claims under VAWA and 18 U.S.C. § 4 10 with prejudice and without leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and granted him 11 leave to amend his other claims. Dkt. No. 12 at 9. 12 On September 19, 2024, J.S. filed a timely amended complaint. Dkt. No. 13. On January 13 22, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause why the amended complaint should not be 14 dismissed for failure to serve Defendants within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 4(m). Dkt. No. 25 at 1–2. J.S. filed a “Proof of Service” on February 12, 2025 in the 16 midst of filing these various motions. Dkt. No. 36. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Because the issues of amending and serving the complaint are intertwined, the Court 19 considers these two issues first. 20 A. Motion for Revised Prayer of Relief 21 J.S.’s Motion for Revised Prayer of Relief requests to augment the prayer for relief in his 22 amended complaint to add requests for a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, compensatory 23 damages, and punitive damages. Dkt. No. 22 at 1. The motion does not attach a proposed amended 24 complaint, and the one-page motion is not itself presented as a proposed amended complaint. There 1 is no mechanism in the Court’s rules for amending a complaint by filing piecemeal allegations like 2 this. Instead, Local Civil Rule 15 requires a party seeking to amend a complaint to file a complete 3 proposed amended complaint and “indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from 4 the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining 5 or highlighting the text to be added.” LCR 15(a). “[P]ro se litigants, whatever their ability level, 6 are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants.” Muñoz v. United States, 28 7 F.4th 973 , 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal citations omitted). 8 Because J.S. is proceeding pro se, the Court considers his motion despite the failure to 9 comply with Local Civil 15. It is not clear that his proposed amendments to his prayer for relief 10 would be futile, and leave to amend should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to amend and grants J.S. leave to file 12 a second amended complaint in the docket within 30 days of the date of this Order. Because J.S. 13 has not requested to amend his complaint beyond updating his prayer for relief, the Court grants 14 him leave to file a second amended complaint that updates only his prayer for relief and not any 15 other aspect of his amended complaint. If his second amended complaint includes new allegations 16 beyond this grant of leave to amend, the Court will strike the second amended complaint. 17 B. Service, Sanctions, and Motion for Summary Judgment 18 J.S. has also filed a Motion for Sanction Against Defendant for Failure To Admit Proper 19 Service. Dkt. No. 35. He seeks sanctions against all three Defendants “for failure to admit . . . that 20 they were properly served” in this case. Id. at 1 . However, J.S. has not served Defendants as 21 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. As the Court previously explained, Dkt. No. 18 at 22 2, service by mail alone is generally not permitted. See, e.g., Williams v. Recovery Innovations 23 Inc., No. 3:24-cv-05496-DGE, 2024 WL 4519959 , at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2024) (citing 24 Rodriguez v. James-Jackson, 111 P.3d 271, 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)). Therefore, the various 1 documents J.S. filed in October 2024 and February 2025 reflecting that he mailed documents do 2 not show that Rule 4 service was accomplished. Dkt. Nos. 16, 36, 39. Nor can a party effect service 3 himself, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), as J.S. attempted here, Dkt. Nos. 16, 36, 39, 42. Because J.S. has 4 not served Defendants with the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 4, he is not entitled to sanctions against them for failure to admit service, and this motion 6 is therefore denied. 7 The lack of service has a second consequence: this action is subject to dismissal absent 8 proper service as the Court previously explained. Dkt. No. 25 at 1–2; see also Omni Cap. Int’l, 9 Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal 10 jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 11 satisfied.”). And when, as here, “a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 12 filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 13 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, in light of J.S.’s pro se status and potential confusion over service 15 and the issuance of summons, the Court grants him one final extension of time to serve Defendants. 16 J.S. must take one of the following three courses of action: (1) if he does not file a second amended 17 complaint, he must within 30 days of this Order file proof of service of his amended complaint 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4; (2) if he files a second amended complaint, he must 19 within 30 days of that filing file proof of service of his second amended complaint pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, see e.g., Emp. Painters’ Tr. v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 21 993 , 995–96, 999 (9th Cir. 2007) (an amended complaint must be served as required under Rule 4 22 unless “the original complaint is properly served”); or (3) J.S. may request within 30 days of the 23 date of this Order an extension of time to serve defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil [24] 1 Procedure 4, and must establish good cause for such an extension. If J.S. fails to comply with any 2 of these options within the time specified, the Court will dismiss the case. 3 Moreover, because J.S. has not served any of the Defendants as required by Federal Rule 4 of Civil Procedure 4, his motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 40, is premature. See, e.g., 5 Gibson v. Castellanos, No. 1:21-cv-00794-GSA-PC, 2022 WL 1173357 , at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 6 2022) (recommending denying motion for summary judgment as premature when the complaint 7 had not been served, none of the Defendants had filed an answer, and no discovery order had been 8 issued), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 1651108 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2022). The 9 Court therefore denies this motion without prejudice. Dkt. No. 40. 10 C. Motion for Update of Status 11 In his Motion for Update of Status, J.S. states that he has “not received any notices from 12 the court in regards to this case except a telephonic notice of receipt of complaint” and that he 13 “would like a case status update[] as well as this case to be updated online for the public as the 14 complaint was revised and updated and served to its defendants.” Dkt. No. 21 at 1. The docket 15 shows that Court staff has mailed all orders to J.S. at his address on file. See Dkt. Nos. 5, 11, 12, 16 18–20, 25, 37. And notwithstanding J.S.’s request to have the docket updated “for the public,” 17 Dkt. No. 21 at 1, the public is able to view the docket and see that J.S. filed an amended complaint. 18 Therefore, the Court denies this motion, but in light of J.S.’s pro se status, the Court directs the 19 Clerk to send him a copy of the docket. 20 D. Motion for Receipt of All Mailed Documents 21 In his Motion Requesting a Receipt of All Mailed Documents, J.S. requests “5 new 22 [subpoenas] to start [his] case again.” Dkt. No. 32 at 2. After receiving this request, the Court 23 issued the five requested subpoenas to him, see February 5, 2025 Minute Order, so this request is 24 now moot. 1 In addition, J.S. requests a receipt of all documents mailed to him. Dkt. No. 32 at 2. As set 2 forth above, those mailings are reflected in the docket, a copy of which will be mailed to him by 3 the Clerk in accordance with this Order. The Court thus denies this request as moot. 4 Finally, J.S. requests an “ADA co[o]rdinator to contact [him] via writ[]ing so [he] can 5 address these issues if possible.” Id. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to federal 6 courts. 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1); Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App'x 804, 806 (9th 7 Cir. 2012). Regardless, this request appears moot as well because the Court has issued the 8 subpoenas as requested and is sending J.S. a copy of the docket. However, if J.S. would still like 9 to speak to the Court’s Accommodations Coordinator for Seattle cases, he may contact Kris Porter 10 at (206) 370-8408. Additional information regarding accommodations may be found on the 11 Court’s website here: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/visitors/access. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS J.S.’s Motion for Revised Prayer of Relief, 14 Dkt. No. 22. J.S. may file a second amended complaint that updates his prayer for relief—but not 15 any other aspect of his amended complaint—within 30 days of this Order. A timely filed amended 16 complaint operates as a complete substitute for an original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 17 F.2d 1258 , 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). For that reason, any amended complaint must clearly identify the 18 defendant(s), the claim(s) asserted, the specific facts that J.S. believes support each claim, and the 19 specific relief requested. 20 The Court also ORDERS J.S. to serve Defendants as set forth above. The Court will 21 dismiss the case without prejudice, absent timely service. 22 The Court DENIES J.S.’s Motion for Update of Status, Dkt. No. 21; Motion Requesting a 23 Receipt of All Mailed Documents, Dkt. No. 32; Motion for Sanction Against Defendant for Failure [24] 1 To Admit Proper Service, Dkt. No. 35; and Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 40; and 2 DIRECTS the Clerk to send J.S. a copy of the docket. 3 Dated this 24th day of February. 4 a 5 Lauren King United States District Judge