United States District Court, D. Oregon
KENNETH I. PATTERSON, Attorney for Plaintiff
ROSENBLUM Attorney General JESSICA B. SPOONER Assistant
Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice Attorneys for
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN, UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion (#10)
to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Court
DENIES Defendants' Motion and
GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to
June 3, 2019, to serve all Defendants
October 24, 2018, Plaintiff Sierra Lavonne McDonald, an
inmate at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, filed a
Complaint in this Court in which she alleges Defendants Dr.
Steve Shelton, Dr. Robert Snider, Vashamy Brady, and John
Does 1-10 failed to administer Plaintiff's medication to
treat her ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease from
August 3, 2016, through October 24, 2016. Plaintiff brings
claims for (1) violation of her Eighth Amendment rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) violation of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
February 15, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all
of Plaintiff's claims on the grounds of "untimely
and improper service" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(e) and (m). Plaintiff's Response to
Defendants' Motion was due March 1, 2019, but Plaintiff
did not file a Response.
March 15, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Filing of
Response and Request for Dismissal in which they noted
Plaintiff had not filed a Response to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, had not contacted defense counsel regarding an
extension, and had not filed a motion for extension of time
with the Court.
on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which stated in its
entirety that "Plaintiff Sierra McDonald, by and through
her attorney Kenneth Patterson, hereby objects to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and requests that this be
set for oral arguments."
March 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order in which it
directed Plaintiff to show cause in writing not later than
April 2, 2019, why she failed to file a timely and
substantive response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
why the Court should not grant Defendants' Motion to
April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to
Motion to Dismiss in response to the Court's March 19,
April 3, 2019, the Court directed Defendants to file a
Response to Plaintiff's April 2, 2019, Memorandum no
later than April 17, 2019. On April 4, 2019, Defendants filed
a Response to Plaintiff's April 2, 2019, Memorandum.
Court took this matter under advisement on April 17, 2019.
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides the following as ...