Bowman v. LV Metropolitan Police Dept.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [5] PRISCELLA SAINTAL BOWMAN, 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-01481-ART-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 LV METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPT., et [Docket No. 100] al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 Pending before the Court is Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 12 (“LVMPD”), Travis Bodnar, Shania Hook, Christian Guerrero, and Jothan Peterson’s motion to 13 quash service on Defendant Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). Docket No. 100. Plaintiff 14 filed a response. Docket No. 103. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 108. 15 On January 6, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and requested that Defendants 16 LVMPD, CCDC, Bodnar, Hook, Guerrero, and Peterson waive service of summons. Docket No. 17 9 at 6-7. On February 24, 2023, Defendants LVMPD, Bodnar, Hook, Guerreo, and Peterson 18 waived service. See Docket Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Two years later, on February 17, 2025, the 19 Clerk’s Office gave notice regarding intention to dismiss CCDC as there has been no proof of 20 service filed as to it. Docket No. 97. On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a proof of service. 21 Docket No. 99. 22 Defendants seek to quash Plaintiff’s service. Docket No. 100. Defendants submit that 23 Plaintiff attempted service by mailing her handwritten summons and a copy of her complaint to 24 the law offices of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, which does not amount to proper service. Id. 25 at 100. Defendants further submit that Plaintiff failed to attempt to serve CCDC over 900 days 26 after she initially filed her complaint, and attempted to serve only after the Clerk’s Office warned 27 her that CCDC may be dismissed for lack of proper service. Docket No. 108 at 2. Plaintiff submits 28 that the attorneys at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith “proceeded as attorneys for CCDC and not 1 until the Courts disputed service did Plaintiff believe that (LBSS) were not the attorneys for CCDC 2 [as] they claimed.” Docket No. 103 at 2. Plaintiff appears to contend that her delay in service is 3 appropriate given those circumstances.1 4 Defendants submit that Plaintiff’s argument is insufficient to establish excusable neglect, 5 and that because Plaintiff delayed even attempting service on CCDC for over 900 days, CCDC 6 should be dismissed from this matter with prejudice. Docket No. 108 at 3-4. However, Defendants 7 provide no explanation as to why they waited until after the Clerk’s Office filed notice to challenge 8 CCDC’s lack of service or why CCDC did not waive service. 9 Defendants with notice of a case who are subject to service have a duty to avoid 10 unnecessary costs of service. Estate of Darulis v. Garate, 401 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th Cir. 2005); 11 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for waiver 12 of service so that the burden of service can be eliminated. See Darulis, 401 F.3d at 1063 . Courts 13 are particularly reluctant in the in forma pauperis context to require the expenditure of government 14 resources for service by the United States Marshal when there appears to be no practical reason 15 for it. See Smith v. Saribay, 2021 WL 1824292 , at *2 n.3 & n.5 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2021); see also 16 Blackwell v. Cascade Cnty., 2018 WL 5557112 , at *4 (D. Mont. Aug. 3, 2018) (in order screening 17 prisoner civil rights claims, sua sponte instructing waiver of service form to be executed by a party 18 or counsel). 19 Here, CCDC is plainly aware of the case as CCDC is a subsidiary bureau of LVMPD, the 20 waivers and complaints were sent to each Defendant courtesy of LVMPD, and all Defendants but 21 CCDC waived service. It would seem that the duty imposed by Rule 4 would best be fulfilled by 22 CCDC waiving service. 23 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to quash service. Docket No. 100. 24 Counsel for Defendants are ORDERED to file a notice, by April 11, 2025, as to whether they will 25 accept service on behalf of CCDC. If service will not be accepted, the Court will provide a [27] 1 The Court construes pro se filings liberally. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237 , 1241 28 (9th Cir. 2013). 1| reasonable period of time for service to be effectuated.” Failure to waive service may result in the 2|| unserved Defendant paying for the service efforts ultimately made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 9, 2025 5 ZL a Kone _ Nancy oppe 6 -UnitedStates Magistrate Judge [26] 27 ? The Court must extend the service deadline upon a showing of good cause and retains broad discretion to extend that deadline even absent good cause. E.g., in re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 28 ] 507, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2001). The circumstances of this case justify an extension of this deadline.