Opinion
4:23-cv-05032-MKD
10-16-2023
KATHY ESPINDA, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS K. WASSON, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE ECF NO. 1
MARY K. DIMKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a notice of unexecuted summons on May 8, 2023. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 5, which this Court denied, ECF No. 6. On July 12, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Service. ECF No. 8. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed documents that indicate Timothy Repass was served. ECF No. 10. Samuel Meyler has entered a Notice of Appearance in this case, indicating he is appearing on behalf of himself and not on behalf of Defendant. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has a separate cause of action in this Court in which Mr. Meyler is the defendant. Espinda v. Meyler, No. 4:23-cv-5085-MKD (E.D. Wash. June 8, 2023).
Plaintiff was cautioned on June 1, 2023 that this case would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effectuate service if she did not show cause within 30 days as to why the case should not be dismissed. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff requested an extension of time for service, and she was given 90 days from July 12, 2023, to complete service. ECF No. 8. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration of service that indicates “Summons in a Civil Action, Joint Status Report-5” were served upon Defendant “at the residence and usual place of abode of said person(s),” and a copy was left with Timothy Repass. ECF No. 10 at 2. However, the declaration also states the documents were served at 801 Kirkland Ave. Suite 100 in Kirkland, Washington. Id. The listed address is the address of Timothy Repass. Id. at 3. There is an email from Mr. Repass that indicates Plaintiff attempted to serve Mr. Repass. Id. There is no indication Defendant was served. Plaintiff appears to concede she did not serve Defendant; she contends she served Mr. Repass, who she contends “admitted” he represents Defendant, and she thus asks the Court to “please provide law that shows Nicholas Wasson was not served/notified.” Id. at 4-5.
The Court cannot provide legal advice to pro se parties, except to recommend they seek the advice of a trained attorney. District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants because requiring judges to explain the details of federal procedure or act as counsel would “undermine district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365-66 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that advising pro se litigants would make the court “a player in the adversary process rather than remaining its referee”). Thus, the Court will not provide advice to Plaintiff on service. Plaintiff may refer to this Court's prior orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and may seek the advice of an attorney.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court dismisses this case without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff, ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the file.