Buy This Entire Record For
Mendoza-Jimenes v. Bonneville County
United States District Court, D. Idaho
August 7, 2018
MARIA E. MENDOZA-JIMENES, Plaintiff,
BONNEVILLE COUNTY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OFFICE, DANIEL R. CLARK, in his personal and official capacity, MICHAEL F. WINCHESTER, in his personal and official capacity, BONNEVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, PAUL J. WILDE, in his personal and official capacity, KOREY EDWARD PAYNE, in his personal and official capacity, KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., SHELLIE COUGHLAN, and JOHN DOES I-XII, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendants Bonneville County, Bonneville
County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Daniel R. Clark,
Michael F. Winchester, Bonneville County Sheriff's
Office, Paul J. Wilde, and Korey Edward Payne's
(“Bonneville County Defendants”) Motion to
Dismiss. Dkt. 4. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the
Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further
delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Court will decide the motion without oral argument. Dist.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
Maria Mendoza-Jimenes filed this lawsuit on December 6, 2017.
In her Complaint, Mendoza-Jimenes alleges various civil
rights violations against the Bonneville County Defendants
stemming from theft charges Bonneville County filed against
her which were later dropped. Put succinctly, Mendoza-Jimenes
alleges that the Bonneville County Defendants were derelict
in their duties and falsely charged and imprisoned her for a
theft she did not commit. According to Mendoza-Jimenes, all
of this could have been avoided had the Bonneville County
Defendants performed a competent and thorough investigation.
instant Motion, the Bonneville County Defendants assert that
Mendoza-Jimenes failed to properly serve them in compliance
with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based
upon this deficient service, the Bonneville County Defendants
ask the Court to dismiss all claims against them.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of
process. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), it is a plaintiff's duty
to serve each defendant in the case within 90 days after
filing the complaint or request a waiver or service under
Rule 4(d). Service upon a defendant in their individual
capacity must conform with Rule 4(e) as follows:
(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District
of the United States.
Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual-other
than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver
has been filed-may be served in a judicial district of the
United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a
summons in an action brought in courts of general
jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located
or where service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of
the complaint to the individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the
individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with
someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent
authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Serving an individual defendant in his
or her official capacity “may be made personally or by
leaving the summons and complaint with an authorized agent at
the defendant's place of employment.” Gerritsen