When do the Scales of Justice Tip – Or do They?
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) have been created and exist to govern district courts. When bringing suit to another party, FRCP Rule 8(a) states that a complaint requires:
1 – A statement showing subject matter jurisdiction
2 – A statement of claims
3 – A statement of relief requested
The complaint must be signed by an attorney, filed with the court clerk, and a summons served to the defendant. According to FRCP Rule 4(f) the defendant then has “reasonable time” to respond.
In the case of Baumbach
v. Dennis et al, Jonathan Baumbach, the plaintiff, is incarcerated in the Arizona
Department of Corrections,
Rehabilitation, and Reentry. Baumbach filed a complaint against David Dennis and Charles Ryan on four counts of excessive force, alleging a violation on Baumbach’s civil rights.
According to FRCP Rule 4(c), the plaintiff is responsible for having the defendant served within the specified amount of time. This person may be specially appointed, such as employing the service of a U.S. Marshal, which Baumbach did in this case. The defendant had since moved to the state of New York, and the U.S. Marshal was not able to find the defendant to serve him.
According to the Baumbach
v Dennis docket, multiple extensions were given allowing the plaintiff opportunity
to comply. Months went by with the plaintiff attempting to serve the defendant
via U.S. Marshall, and this time was granted by the court. The case only
recently closed on August 5, 2021, though the claim was brought July 24, 2020.
Though we are still in the early stages of learning these principles
of justice and there is much more to understand, I am very interested in
hearing thoughts about this case. What are the questions that arise when we think
about not just the scales of justice, but the balances of power?
Here are the questions that came up for me:
- At what point has the court shown due diligence in providing the plaintiff opportunity to serve the defendant?
- Is it reasonable that due to restraints outside of his control, the plaintiff is unable to serve the summons?
- Is it appropriate that the person ordered to provide the address for the defendant be the Director of a government facility, for an employee that worked for the government facility, and entrusting a U.S Marshal to bring his complaint on his behalf?
- If the plaintiff was given longer time to comply, when would it end? Should there be a point where the complaint is dismissed when the plaintiff is incarcerated and at the mercy of the justice system?
Baumbach v. Dennis et al 2021 WL 3418017
Agyeman v. Corrections Corp of America 390 F.3d 1101
Pliler v. Ford 124 S.Ct. 2441
Reishaus v. Almarez 2011 WL 1526936
I apologize for any difficulty reading my post. On my end it showed the font style and size being normal until publishing. I see that I can make updates, but nothing changes. I am also not sure why it shows a white background on the text. I have never done a blog post. Though formatting looked similar to word or google document, I was not able to make it look any differently. If anyone can offer assistance and has any suggestions on how to make corrections, I would be happy to do so!
ReplyDeleteApparently I don't know how to do hyperlinks either. I have tried them and at least for me they are not working. I found these cases in Westlaw if you would like to view them for reference.
DeleteI think that the court showed due diligence in order to give Baumbach time to serve Dennis--the time period to serve was extended multiple times, and he was able to use the US Marshalls to help him serve the summons. It is unfortunate that Dennis seemingly disappeared and is therefore able to evade answering the plaintiff's complaints. Given that the plaintiff is incarcerated, it seems especially unfair as he does not have access to the kinds of resources someone who is not incarcerated would have. Depending on the nature of the complaint, I think it would be fair to give them more time, but I also don't think that the time should be limitless.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting point about the potential conflict of interest in having the person ordered to provide the address for the defendant be the Director of a government facility, for an employee that worked for the government facility, and entrusting a U.S Marshal to bring the complaint on his behalf. Alternatively, Baumbach could have hired a private process server to deliver the summons, assuming he had the resources to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is an interesting point. I wonder how often conflict of interest issues arise when delivering summons. I'd be interested to learn about any "rules" that might protect a plaintiff when they are trying to serve someone.
DeleteThis is an interesting point, Sam. As far as the reading, "Persons who may serve the summonsAs a general rule, any person who is not a party and is at least 18 years old may serve the complaint and summons." I'm sure the clerk would be able to spot a conflict of interest, as well as having the person who serves the complaint having incentive to deliver the summons.
DeleteThis is unfortunate for Baumbach because it seems like there is a lot that is out of his control in this situation. Had he not been incarcerated, he would have access to more resources that would have allowed him to serve Dennis. However, I do think it has to come to an end at some point. Court systems are usually overwhelmed, and dragging something like this out for months is not productive. Baucmbach was granted several extensions, therefore, I think the court was fair and reasonable with how they handled this.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but feel skeptical that the defendant could not be found for that extended period of time. Skepticism aside, Baumbach is relying on the US Marshal to serve a summons and there's not much else he can do while incarcerated. While the court did give multiple extensions, the resulting dismissal as Megan mentioned, "allows" the defendant to evade the complaint. Baumbach had to provide the US Marshal with necessary information to serve the summon, but can substantial information can be gathered with limited resources? Depending on the severity of the complaint, I think multiple extensions are warranted.
ReplyDeleteAriel, I also felt skeptical about the defendant not being found. It made me wonder how often this happens. I did appreciate the extensions the court gave, and agree that they should be warranted under certain circumstances where there is limited resources. I also wondered why the other supports he requested were not awarded (such as appointing counsel and someone to serve the summons), but after reading the other cases cited on this it made sense.
DeleteI, like Ariel, am skeptical that the defendant could just disappear and not be found. This situation highlights a major gap in the process. I was a bit incensed at the language in the ruling that states the "Plaintiff has failed to meet his obligation of providing the Marshals sufficient information to effect service". I know that it comes from the statute and must be stated that way, but Baumbach in no way had any control or access to better sources to find Dennis. In the reading this week, Rule 4(m) lists the number of days to serve the complaint. "If service is not made in time, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice as to the unserved defendant, unless good cause for the delay can be shown" (Mauet and Marcus, 2015). I keep focusing on the good cause for the delay portion. Also, it states that the complaint can be refiled if done so within the applicable time allowed. When does the clock start and stop? Can Baumbach just keep re-filing as long as he is within that time frame? There does seem to be a conflict of interest as many responses to this blog state. It leaves me questioning, how hard did they try? Also, I wonder if Baumbach can file a new suit naming the state or the prison as defendants responsible for the actions of their employee.
ReplyDeleteI had the same thoughts on Baumbach filing a new suit naming the state or the prison. It makes me wonder why the approach was to file against two defendants. Another good point you made, what and who is making the decision about "good cause for the delay". Will this change depending on WHO is filing the suit?
DeleteStephanie, I was also upset by the language used. Incensed was a great word! After doing more reading this week I can understand a little more why specific verbiage is used, and at the same time it does feel as though it is placing blame on something that is completely out of Baumbach's control. I am really glad that you and Amber brought up Rule 4 (m). As this was determined in August, I would be curious to know if it does get re-filed. You bring up a very good and interesting point on Baumbach filing a new suit. I would like to know if there is an obligation for the U.S. Marshal to document his attempts, the efforts made, and the results, and where that would be filed.
DeleteBased on the defined “reasonable” timeframe under FRCP Rule 4c, the court did their due diligence in extending the complaint to be served to the plaintiff. It does bring up the issue of the US Marshall serving the complaint and what their role is. How many times do they try to locate the defendant? Is it just a one-time thing each time the complaint is extended? If those rules are not defined, would defining them assist others in the same situation Baumbach is in. It also raises the issue, as others have pointed out, that if Baumbach was not incarcerated, would this have had a different outcome as he was at the mercy of others to obtain the required information and relying on the ex-employer to provide the forwarding information of the defendant
ReplyDeleteGood thought, Stephanie! Would there be a different way to bring about justice for Baumbach?
ReplyDeleteFor just a moment, I am going to play devil's advocate and come at the situation from a different perspective. A person, when convicted of a crime is imprisoned and loses rights as a citizen, e.g. the right to vote. My question is, where is the fine line between the rights retained and the rights taken away? Thinking of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," all of those rights can be denied someone who is found guilty of committing a crime.
On the flip side, where do civil rights and fairness play in? Our moral sense tells us that something is wrong with the way Baumbach was treated--perhaps that a crime had been committed against him while he was serving his prison term. When individuals are in positions of authority, and commit a crime, it seems convenient to cover-up, colluding with those who would corroborate their story. Consider the lawsuits brought against the B.S.A. and the U.S. Olympics Gymnastics physician. I would pose that the Baumbach case is similar in respect to the defendant being in a position of authority. In this case, the inability to locate the defendant lends itself to a coverup such that the facts of the case can't be determined without a defendant showing up for a trial. We allow a lengthy period of time before a statute of limitations is effected. Why do we only allow days, with possible extensions for a summons to be served?
I do not think there is a need to play a devil's advocate as the devil's deed has already been implemented by Judge Snow. Although most states do have the incarcerated person lose their right to vote, Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow them to vote, and additionally the District of Columbia (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspxz).
DeleteIf I may ask, if a person can lose their right to have their case heard because of institutional resources, what difference is there to them being treated as an enslaved person (although Amendment 13 allows them to be treated as such)?
I was attempting to point out that incarcerated people lose many freedoms, and we charge prison guards to carry out those orders of imprisonment. I can't point to a study of prison guards overstepping their authority, but the sense is that it happens and human rights are violated by those in authority. If a prisoner is wronged by a guard who is in a position of authority, does that accusation need an unencumbered path to a fair trial? On the flip side, that kind of privilege could get abused.
DeleteYou bring up good points. Is it fair to the plaintiff to throw out a case because the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown? Maybe a default judgement is in order, but that certainly isn't fair to the defendant if he/she didn't even know about the suit. I think a court should keep open a case as long as necessary for a defendant to be served.
ReplyDeleteI also agree there is potentially a conflict of interest in having the US Marshals serve a correctional officer. However, I do not believe this would be an issue worthy of an appeal. There are several ways in which someone can be served, and there are even Process Servers, which a plaintiff can hire to have the defendant served. The plaintiff's choice to utilize the US Marshals service was his own.
The questions posed are all very good questions. I truly feel there has to be an end. These proceedings cannot be on hold indefinitely due to being unable to serve the other party. But in whose favor should it go? If it is let go, the plaintiff will not be able to proceed with the suit since there is not a defendant available. The defendant cannot be held liable and found guilty without due process. It is a conundrum with no answer with the person needing to be served is the defendant. Since I am new to this as well and still am learning things, this is just my impression on what I think seems fair. As long as it was possible, the case should be dismissed until the defendant can be found and the plaintiff can then refile. If there is a statute of limitations, that should be extended by a reasonable amount of time, to allow further location efforts. Eventually, the statute of limitation would run out and though it is unfair to the plaintiff, it is not possible for a suit to go forward without a defendant and to fulfill the due process afforded to us all in the constitution.
ReplyDelete"For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." - Audrey Lorde
ReplyDeleteJonathan Baumbach had the entire institution against him from the beginning. The first question makes the assumption that the court has to go above the obligation of providing ample opportunities toward the plaintiff, as the current stipulations of Rule 4 lies on the plaintiff and not the defendant. In other words, the burden to get the litigation process initiated is on the plaintiff.
The question you proposed about the plaintiff's situation being out of control and thus asking if it is "reasonable" is the premise of which the judicial system operates within. The majority of people living in the United States have uncontrollable situations, this does not make the dismissal of the courts "right" in my mind yet it is often the case for many underresourced individuals.
You asked about the appropriateness of the Director of the government facility to provide the residential address of the defendant, I believe it is. However, they should not be the only person to provide this information. Methinks the Internal Revenue Service or another governing body can also provide the place of the defendant, considering that they may also be obtaining welfare services.
Viewing the docket's timeline, over a year of procedural steps have been taken. Although I do believe the court, nevertheless unjust, has done all it has to do following textual and traditional interpretations of the Rules. Rather than the Court having to provide the necessary counseling, I believe this is where other organizations, albeit agenda-driven nonprofits, can and should interject with counseling.
In an above comment, it was mentioned that the objective of serving an individual rather than an organization is where a refiling could benefit the defendant. The procedures that a court navigates through is confusing and if the plaintiff does not have the nomenclature of the judicial system, many trials are never motioned to set forth to uncovering facts. This is a point of disappointment the US Legal System.
Cristobal, you bring up great points!
DeleteI was very frustrated with this case. I think most of it came from that "conundrum" Tina mentioned and that you and others speak to as well. The plaintiff should have the ability to have the charges heard. The defendant also has a right to due process. When neither happens, is there justice? And yet, as you said, all of the rules were followed according to traditional interpretations.
Sam mentions the courts being overwhelmed, and Jacob poses a good thought about having a case remain open. While the justice system is working in terms of action, is it working in terms of how it functions?
I feel this case left me with more questions about if there are processes that could be improved rather than affirming the system works. Your point of many people living in the U.S. having situations out of their control and the dismissal of their rights is a good one to remember when thinking about the legal system.
I'm a bit late to the game as I was dealing with a medical emergency last week, (actually dental, as I had a molar go way over to the dark side). However, seeing everyone's responses is fascinating. Things that I've taken in after reading the entire class' responses: As we've heard a couple of our professors state - words matter. Herein and with many cases what is "reasonable" or "reasonable time?" And how many is "multiple extensions?" Multiple can mean as few as two which may in actuality be a very short time. And as Susan brought up, what constitutes a position of authority? And as Cristobal referenced, It seems very unlikely that an incarcerated person will have few resources and in fact will face the court system already handicapped even he has a right to seek damages. I'm just throwing out open ended questions that I hope have some semblance of an answer.
ReplyDeleteAnd one other point, perhaps I missed it. Did anyone try to serve the second named defendant, Charles Ryan?