Tran v. City of Las Vegas ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 HOANG KIM TRAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00203-ART-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff Hoang Kim Tran (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at Southern 11 Desert Correctional Center, filed a Complaint against several METRTO officers. ECF No. 1. 12 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. ECF Nos 1, 19. 13 The Court screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and allowed the Fourth Amendment 14 claim for excessive force to proceed against Defendants Ortega, Lomoglio, Raso, Stokey, and 15 Murano in their individual capacities. ECF No. 27. 16 The Court ordered that service of the summonses and the amended complaint upon 17 Defendants be effected by the United States Marshal (“USM”). ECF No. 27. 18 On May 31, 2023, a completed USM-285 Process Receipt and Return was filed, which 19 indicates that the USM attempted to serve these Defendants but was advised “LVMPD requests 20 P# be provided to correctly identify [officers]. There are multiple staff with the same last name.” 21 ECF No. 29. 22 This Court has an obligation to construe, administer and employ the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure in a manner “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 24 action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“Rule 1”). Although the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 25 26(a)(1)(A) do not apply in cases brought by persons in the custody of a state who is without 26 counsel (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv)), the Supreme Court has held, in a pro per prisoner civil 27 rights case, that trial courts have “broad discretion” under Rule 26 to manage discovery “to 1 facilitate [the] prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 2 574, 599 (1998). 3 Although an incarcerated IFP pro se plaintiff is entitled to rely on the USM to effect 4 service of process, it is ultimately a plaintiff's responsibility to provide the USM “sufficient 5 identifying information, including a full name and a current address for the unserved defendants, 6 so they can be served.” Thomas v. Ellis, 2014 WL 116286, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014). At the 7 same time, this Court has an “obligation to assist a pro se incarcerated litigant to obtain discovery 8 ... so that service can be effected.” Carpio v. Luther, 2009 WL 605300, at *1 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 9, 9 2009) (citing Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Billman v. Indiana 10 Dep't of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[B]ecause plaintiff] is a prisoner he may 11 not be in a position to identify the proper defendants, or all of them in his complaint.... We think 12 it is the duty of the district court to assist [the incarcerated pro se litigant], within reason, to make 13 the necessary investigation.”). 14 METRO has advised that additional information is required to effectuate service. Plaintiff 15 has a right to discovery regarding the full names and “P numbers” of the Defendants. Immediate 16 limited discovery directed to Defendants regarding the full name and “P numbers” appears to be 17 warranted. The Court will provide Defendants an opportunity to be heard upon the propriety of 18 such an order. 19 Therefore, by no later than June 28, 2023, METRO shall file and serve upon Plaintiff 20 either an Objection or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the issuance of an Order directing 21 METRO to (1) determine which officers by the last names of Ortega, Lomoglio, Raso, Stokey, 22 and Murano may have been on duty on March 28, 2021 at approximately 9:30 a.m. responding to 23 a situation roughly corresponding to that described Plaintiff’s amended complaint; and (2) file a 24 notice advising the Court and Plaintiff, by no later than July 21, 2023, as to: (a) what METRO 25 was able to determine, (b) to the extent METRO was able to determine which officers are the 26 named defendants, the names of the Defendants for whom it accepts service and the names of the 27 defendants for whom it does not accept service, and (c) for the Defendants for whom it does not 1 || accept service, whether it is willing to file their last known address under seal with the Court so 2 || that the USM can attempt service on those Defendants. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the USM serve this Order on METRO Assistant 5 || General Counsel Ruth Miller. 6 DATED: June 7, 2022. 7 qe wey, BRENDA WEKSLER 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28