United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER - AND - REPORTOFFINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATION
(MOT. FOR ORDER - ECF NO. 89)
A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Mark Picozzi's
Motion for Court to Order CCDC to Provide Officer
Jolley's Information (ECF No. 89), as well as his failure
to serve defendant Carr. This proceeding is referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR
IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
Picozzi is a pro se prisoner in the custody of the
Nevada Department of Corrections. He has received permission
to proceed in this case in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR
1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice. See IFP
Application (ECF No. 3); Screening Order (ECF No. 15). This
case arises from Picozzi's allegations, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983, that his civil rights were violated while
he was incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center
(“CCDC”). Upon review of the Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 14), the court found that Picozzi stated plausible
claims against 13 defendants: Sergeant Judd, Officers
Hightower, Daos, Goins, Hans, Brooks, Phillips, Carr, Razzo,
Jolley, Coker, Garcia, and Nurse Amanda
Vertner. See Screening Order (ECF No. 15).
Picozzi has encountered multiple obstacles in effectuating
service. The U.S. Marshals Service (“USM”) served
defendants Coker, Daos, Goins, Hightower, Judd, and Phillips
on March 23, 2016. See Executed Summons (ECF No.
21). However, the USM was unable to locate defendants Brooks,
Carr, Garcia, Hans, Jolley, or Razzo. See Unexecuted
Summons (ECF No. 20). Picozzi filed multiple motions (ECF
Nos. 32, 43, 44) seeking information to further his efforts
to accomplish service. The court granted his motions and
directed counsel to submit the unserved defendants'
personal information under seal and file a notice of
compliance on the public docket. See Nov. 2, 2016
Order (ECF No. 55). The court informed Picozzi that he would
have 14 days from the notice of compliance to file a motion
requesting service and, upon filing such motion, the court
will reset the service deadline and the USM would reattempt
complied with the court's order and indicated that
service would be accepted by the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department Risk Management Office for defendants
Officer Michael Brooks, Officer Joanne Hans, Officer Eduardo
Garcia, Officer Gerald Razo, and retired Officer Lynn Jolly.
See Sealed Response (ECF No. 59); Notice (ECF No.
60). However, counsel stated there is no record of a current
or former corrections officer named Carr. Id.
Picozzi timely filed his Motion to Serve the Unserved
Defendants (ECF No. 61).
on Picozzi's substitution of Nurse Amanda Vertner in
place of defendant Jane Doe #1, the court ordered defense
counsel to file under seal the last known address and
telephone number of Vertner and/or indicate whether counsel
is authorized to accept service on her behalf; and file a
notice of compliance on the public docket. Order (ECF No.
66). Counsel complied with the court's Order regarding
Vertner. See Sealed Response (ECF No. 70); Notice
(ECF No. 71). Picozzi filed a duplicative motion (ECF No. 67)
regarding service of Vertner despite the court's explicit
instruction that he need not do so.
court granted Picozzi's service requests in part as to
defendants Brooks, Hans, Garcia, Razo, Jolly, and Vertner,
and denied in part without prejudice as to defendant Carr.
See Apr. 6, 2017 Order (ECF No. 73). Because
defendant Carr was not identified in the Sealed Response,
Picozzi was instructed to “file a timely motion
specifying a different or more detailed name and/or address
for Carr, or whether some other manner of service should be
attempted.” Id. at 3. Additionally, he was
once again warned that he is ultimately responsible for
providing the USM with accurate and sufficient information to
effectuate service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d
1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). Pursuant to Rule 4(m),
Picozzi's failure to comply with this Order by
accomplishing service by June 5, 2017, will
result in a recommendation to the district judge that this
case be dismissed without prejudice.
Id. at 3.
were returned executed for defendants Brooks, Hans, Garcia,
Razo, and Vertner, see Executed Summons (ECF Nos.
77, 81),  but not for retired officer Jolley,
see Unexecuted Summons (ECF No. 78). The unexecuted
summons for Jolley indicated that an additional address was
needed to complete service. Id. The Clerk of the
Court issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (ECF No. 87) for
Jolley on June 8, 2017. Court records indicate that the
notice was electronically mailed to counsel for all
Picozzi's Motion (ECF No. 89)
pending motion, Picozzi responds to the Notice of Intent to
Dismiss (ECF No. 87) entered after the USM unsuccessfully
attempted to serve defendant Jolley. See Unexecuted
Summons (ECF No. 78). He asks the court yet again to order
CCDC to provide the court correct information to ...