Bell #212285 v. Hakeman et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Richard Cortez Bell,
Plaintiff,
v.
K. Hakeman,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-03377-PHX-SHD (JZB)
ORDER
Plaintiff Richard Cortez Bell, who is currently confined in the La Palma
Correctional Center (LPCC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 19), the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 28),
and Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. 29). For the reasons set forth below, the R&R
will be adopted in part and rejected in part, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave will be
granted in part and denied in part.
I. PERTINENT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on November 27, 2024, asserting deliberate
indifference medical claims against four defendants—Nurse Practitioner K. Hakeman,
Assistant Deputy Warden Freeland, Registered Nurse Wofford, and CoreCivic Medical
Monitor Steve Bender—based on allegations that these defendants improperly deprived
him of a knee brace (the “Knee Brace Claim”) and deprived him of the diabetes medication
Trulicity (the “Trulicity Claim”). (Doc. 1.) On April 17, 2025, upon screening under 28
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 12

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment
medical claim against Hakeman under the Knee Brace Claim theory. (Doc. 7 at 8.) The
Court, however, dismissed the remaining defendants, as well as Plaintiff’s Trulicity Claim,
without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 6–7.) On July 8, 2025, Hakeman filed
her answer addressing only the Knee Brace Claim. (Doc. 12.)1
On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint, (Doc. 19), and separately
lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 20).2 In his Proposed Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff added the three defendants initially dismissed (Freeland, Wofford, and
Bender) plus two new defendants: Dr. Ivens, “CoreCivic’s medical supervisor at La Palma
C.C.,” (Doc. 20 at 4 (cleaned up)), and Kirk Weddle, a “part of CoreCivic’s medical staff
. . . who addresses all inmate complaints concerning medical issues . . . at La Palma C.C.,”
(id. at 6). Plaintiff also reasserted his Trulicity Claim. (Id. at 5.) Hakeman opposed the
amendment, arguing that it was futile because Plaintiff had failed to cure the deficiencies
identified in the Court’s initial screening order. (Doc. 23.)3 Plaintiff replied, focusing
primarily on his addition of Dr. Iven in the Proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.)4
1 No other defendant has been served, and thus no other defendant has appeared in
this case to date.
2 Plaintiff refers to his proposed amended complaint as a “Second Amended
Complaint” because on June 2, 2025, he moved to amend his initial Complaint and lodged
a proposed First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 9 and 10.) His first motion to amend was
never fully briefed and ultimately was denied as moot due to the filing of the second motion
to amend. (Doc. 26.) For simplicity, the Court will refer to the proposed complaint at issue
as “the Proposed Amended Complaint.”
3 Hakeman also argued that the amendment to add Dr. Iven was futile because
Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that Dr. Iven had any knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical
care, among other things. (Doc. 23 at 1–2.) It is unclear why Hakeman challenged a
portion of the Proposed Amended Complaint that did not impact her, and the Court will
disregard Hakeman’s arguments concerning Dr. Iven. Nonetheless, the Court will
independently assess the adequacy of the Proposed Amendment Complaint—including the
claims against Dr. Iven—pursuant to its obligation to screen in forma pauperis complaints
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
4 In his reply, Plaintiff alleged the following: “On information and belief, Dr. Ivens
personally participated in denial of Plaintiff’s request for and [sic] outside orthopedic
consultation and issuance of a specialty knee brace, despite documented medical
justification and approval.” (Doc. 24 at 3 (cleaned up).) That allegation, however, does
not appear in the Proposed Amended Complaint and therefore will not be considered by
the Court.
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 12

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On October 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(the “R&R”) that rejected the Knee Brace Claim against all proposed defendants except
Hakeman, and rejected the Trulicity Claim against all proposed defendants. (Doc. 28
(recommending that motion to amend be granted in part and denied in part).) Regarding
the Knee Brace Claim, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations against all
proposed defendants except Hakeman were too vague and conclusory as to their knowledge
of his medical situation to state a constitutional violation. (Id. at 6–11.) Regarding the
Trulicity Claim, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations only set forth a mere
difference of opinion between medical providers, which is not actionable under the Eighth
Amendment. (Id. at 11–12.)
Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R. (Doc. 29.) In his Objection, Plaintiff asserted
that he sufficiently alleged that the proposed defendants knew about his medical conditions
and failed to act, causing him harm, and that he did not need to provide any specific dates
because “that is what discovery is for” and “Plaintiff reserves that right to conform the
pleadings to the evidence presented at trial.” (Id. at 2–6.) Plaintiff also asserts that he
adequately stated his Trulicity claim because the diabetes treatment he received at LPCC
contradicted the orders of his prior doctor and caused him harm. (Id. at 8–10.) Hakemen
replied to Plaintiff’s Objection, defending the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. 30 at 3–6.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Review of Report and Recommendation
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where any
party has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the
district court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections
are filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Objections must be specific. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
“[G]eneral, non-specific objections” are not sufficient to require the District Court
“conduct de novo review of the entire R & R.” Sullivan v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1516005, at
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 12

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*1 (D. Ariz. 2006).
B. Leave to Amend
Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). Leave need not be granted, however, where there exist circumstances “such
as . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed . . . and
futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Saul v. United
States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A district court does not err in denying leave to
amend where the amendment would be futile . . . or where the amended complaint would
be subject to dismissal.” (citations omitted)). The allegations in a proposed amended
complaint must be taken as true in assessing whether the amendment would be futile. See,
e.g., Utherverse Gaming LLC v. Epic Gaming, Inc., 2023 WL 4908304, at *4 (W.D. Wash.
2023) (“To analyze whether any amendment would be futile, the Court accepts the
assertions of fact as true . . . .”). As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must “construe
pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[O]ur
obligation remains, where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to
construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”
(cleaned up)).
C. Eighth Amendment Medical Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
An Eighth Amendment medical claim must be predicated on the “deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). “Deliberate indifference is a high
legal standard,” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and to demonstrate
it a plaintiff must establish two things. First, the plaintiff must prove “a serious medical
need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further
significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Penner, 439 F.3d at
1096 (cleaned up). Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s response
was deliberately indifferent by showing: (1) a purposeful act or failure to respond to
medical need; and (2) harm caused by the defendant’s indifference. Id. Indifference may
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 12

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be found where a prison official denies, delays, or intentionally interferes with a prisoner’s
medical treatment. Id.
“[A] prison official cannot be found liable . . . unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,
and [they] must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)
(“[A]n official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that [they] should have perceived but
did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the
infliction of punishment.” (Id. at 838.)). Thus, liability only attaches if a prison official
“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Colwell v.
Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057).
III. DISCUSSION
In his Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single count against six
individual proposed defendants. (Doc. 20 at 5.) This count includes both the Knee Brace
Claim and the Trulicity Claim. (See id. at 5–6.) The Court will first generally address the
sufficiency of the Knee Brace and Trulicity Claims before addressing whether Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged facts implicating each of the proposed defendants with respect to those
claims.
A. Knee Brace Claim
Plaintiff alleges that all proposed defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs by cancelling a knee brace ordered by an outside specialist and
refusing to reorder it from a company called Hagar based on the “fictitious” claim that the
knee brace contained metal in it, leaving him without the brace and causing pain in his
knees and ankles. (Doc. 20 at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that he was told that he could not have
his knee brace due to metal in it but implies this was pretextual because Plaintiff was
allowed his knee brace in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections,
Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR). (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff also alleges that Hakeman
refused to order him an alternative knee brace—such as plastic, fiberglass, or hard plastic—
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 5 of 12

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and refused to provide him an x-ray or MRI for his worsening knee pain. (Id.)
On screening, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff sufficiently stated his
Knee Brace Claim as to Defendant Hakeman, (Doc. 7 at 8), and reached the same
conclusion in the R&R, (Doc. 28 at 6 n.7, 7–8). The Court agrees that Plaintiff has alleged
that he has a serious medical need, and sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference with
respect to the deprivation of his knee brace as to Hakeman.5 And as set forth in Section
III(C) below, Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that most of the other proposed
defendants knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to his safety by depriving him of the
brace.
B. The Trulicity Claim
In the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs due to the denial of Trulicity for weight loss as part of the treatment
for his diabetes. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he was able to lose weight with Trulicity
and that it is the “only medication” that has been effective for weight loss. (Id.) Plaintiff
further asserts that when he arrived at LPCC “corecivic medical staff” cancelled his
Trulicity shot to “save money” and replaced it with an unnamed medication that “is
ineffective,” “has caused [him] to continue to gain weight,” and has other “harmful side
effects such as loss of sleep, weight gain, [and] pain in knees and ankles” due to the weight
gain. (Id.)
Liberally construing the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged deliberate indifference with respect to the Trulicity Claim. He has alleged that he
has a serious medical need to control his diabetes and weight, and as set forth in Section
III(C) below, has sufficiently alleged that most of the proposed defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to his safety and health by depriving him of Trulicity to treat
his diabetes and weight.
Hakeman cites Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (1989), to argue that the Trulicity
5 The Court need not address the Knee Brace Claim against Defendant Hakeman
further because she did not object to the R&R. Cf. Schmidt, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (if no
objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a review).
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 6 of 12

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Claim fails because Plaintiff alleged only a “mere disagreement over the type of medical
treatment he receives.” (Doc. 23 at 2; Doc. 30 at 6.) Sanchez, however, does not support
Hakeman’s argument. In that case—which was decided on appeal of a summary judgment
ruling—the evidence established that a prison doctor had advised the plaintiff that he
needed surgery, but that the plaintiff had received an “extensive degree . . . [of] subsequent
medical attention,” including seeing “a physician’s assistant, prison doctors, and outside
physicians,” and receiving “substantial treatment and medication for his ailments” that
“cleared up the symptoms of his ailments, which . . . recur.” Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242.
Here, Plaintiff has alleged that the medication and care he is receiving have not treated his
serious medical needs and are making his condition worse, causing weight gain, pain and
swelling, and loss of sleep. Accordingly, Hakeman’s argument is unavailing.
C. The Proposed Defendants’ Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Medical Needs
Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint sets forth allegations against each of the
six proposed defendants in turn. (Doc. 20 at 6–16.) The Court will conduct its analysis in
the same fashion to determine whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged Eight Amendment
claims against the proposed defendants, focusing on their alleged knowledge of and
deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs.
1. Weddle
Plaintiff asserts that on June 17, 2024, he wrote to Weddle, a member of CoreCivic’s
medical staff who addresses inmate complaints regarding medical issues, informing him
that his serious medical needs—including “diabetes, obesity, bad knees, and rapid weight
gain”—were not being treated appropriately and instead were worsening. (Id. at 6–7.) He
alleges that Weddle reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records when researching Plaintiff’s
complaint but did nothing to address his concerns. (Id.) Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as
true and liberally construing the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged deliberate indifference by Weddle because Weddle allegedly knew about Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs and the inappropriate treatment he received and declined to order
proper treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s proposed addition of Weddle as a defendant is
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 7 of 12

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not futile and he will be granted leave to amend to add Weddle as to both of his deliberate
indifference claims.
2. Hakeman
The Magistrate Judge determined, without objection by Hakeman, that Plaintiff
stated an Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim against her based on his Knee
Brace claim. (Doc. 28 at 7–8.) The Court now finds that Plaintiff has also asserted
sufficient facts regarding Hakeman’s deliberate indifference regarding his diabetes
medication to state his Trulicity Claim against her. Specifically, he alleges that prior to
and during the summer of 2024 while he was at LPCC, he “wrote to Defendant K. Hakeman
concerning his medical issues through the inmate internal mailing system” explaining “the
seriousness and worsening of [his] medical conditions in great detail” and also explained
in detail that his Trulicity injection had helped him but “since being stripped of his . . .
Trulicity shot . . . he was rapidly gaining weight and . . . the rapid weight gain causes his
knees and ankles to swell to the point Plaintiff can barely ambulate around.” (Doc. 20 at
7–8.) He further alleges that notwithstanding her knowledge of his worsening condition,
Hakeman “chose to ignore Plaintiff’s crys [sic] for help” and “knowingly failed to respond
to Plaintiff’s medical needs.” (Id. at 8, 9.) These allegations, liberally construed, state a
claim for deliberate indifference against Hakeman concerning the Trulicity Claim and she
will be ordered to respond to that claim.
3. Wofford
Plaintiff asserts that through the grievance system and inmate letters, he repeatedly
and extensively made Wofford, a registered nurse at LPCC, aware of his ongoing issues
with medication and his knee brace, as well as the deterioration of his condition, but that
Wofford knowingly failed to act. (Id. at 10-11.) Specifically, he alleges that he “made
clear the worsening of his medical condition to Defendant Wofford, as compared to his
condition when he was being given the Trulicity shot, and using the special Hangar knee
brace” and did so in the “late summer and early winter months of 2024.” (Id. at 10.) He
also alleges that he “repeatedly complained to Wofford about the lack of medical treatment,
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 8 of 12

- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
medications, and equipment, and to no avail Wofford would not correct the issues made
known to him by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 10–11.) Construing the Proposed Amended Complaint
liberally, Plaintiff has stated a claim against Wofford and leave will be granted to add
Wofford as a defendant as to both the Knee Brace Claim and the Trulicity Claim.
4. Bender
Plaintiff alleges that in July 2024, he sent CoreCivic Medical Monitor Bender an
inmate letter making him aware of “ongoing medical issues and complications,” and
worsening condition, but despite knowing of these issues Bender failed to address them or
take any action to investigate or resolve them, and instead “ignored those risks, complaints
and red flags.” (Id. at 11–13.) Plaintiff alleges that he also informed Bender that he was
unable to sleep at night due to chronic pain. (Id. at 12.) Again, construing Plaintiff’s
allegations liberally, his allegations against Bender are not futile and leave will be granted
to add Bender as a defendant as to both the Knee Brace Claim and the Trulicity Claim.
5. Freeland
Plaintiff alleges that in September 2024, he informed Freeland, an assistant deputy
warden at LPCC, through the grievance systems about his “entire medical episode” at La
Palma, including “how his condition and complaints reached a point of deterioration,” but
Freeland intentionally declined to act. (Id. at 13–15.) Plaintiff further alleges that Freeland
was responsible for ensuring adequate medical care. (Id.) As with the other proposed
defendants, and again construing the Proposed Amended Complaint liberally, Plaintiff has
stated a claim for deliberate indifference against Freeland based on his alleged knowledge
of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and refusal to address them. At this early stage of the
case—without the benefit of any discovery or presentation of evidence by the parties—the
Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s allegations against Freeland are futile as a matter of
law, and leave will be granted to add Freeland as a defendant.
6. Ivens
Plaintiff does not allege that Ivens actually knew of Plaintiff’s alleged serious
medical needs or inadequate medical treatment. Rather, Plaintiff alleges only that “[a]ll
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 9 of 12

- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
inmate complaints concerning medical [go] through Defendant Ivan’s [sic] hands” since
he is CoreCivic’s medical supervisor, and that “it’s his job to know of such matters.” (Id.
at 15.) Plaintiff’s allegations against Ivens, sued in his individual capacity, fail to state a
claim because they do suggest that Ivens had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious
medical needs, let alone that Ivens acted with deliberate indifference to those needs.
Furthermore, simply because a defendant is a supervisor in the medical department
and “has access” to Plaintiff’s medical records does not render them liable under the Eighth
Amendment. See, e.g., Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (there is
no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position as the
supervisor of persons who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not
impose liability).6 Because Plaintiff’s amendment is futile as to his claims against Ivens,
he will be denied leave to amend to add Ivens.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objections will be sustained in part and overruled in part,
the R&R will be adopted in part and rejected in part, and the Motion for Leave to Amend
will be granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend (Doc. 19).
(2) The Magistrate Judge’ s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) is adopted
in part and rejected in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 19) is granted in part
and denied in part as set forth in this Order.
(3) The Clerk of the Court must file the Amended Complaint (currently lodged
at Doc. 20).
(4) Defendant Hakeman must respond to the Trulicity Claim no later than
fourteen days from the date of this Order.
6 Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied medical treatment by CoreCivic due to a
policy of saving money and due to a security policy preventing him from getting a metal
brace, but Plaintiff has not named CoreCivic as a defendant in this case. (See Doc. 20 at
5.)
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 10 of 12

- 11 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including this Order,
the Amended Complaint, and a copy of the Marshal’s Process Receipt & Return form
(USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of Service of Summons form for
Defendants Weddle, Wofford, Bender, and Freeland..
(6) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court
within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide
service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.
(7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or
complete service of the Summons and Amended Complaint on Defendants within 90 days
of the filing of the Amended Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order,
whichever is later, the action may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv
16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).
(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Amended
Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.
(9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants of the commencement of
this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this
Order.
(10) If Defendants agree to waive service of the Summons and Amended
Complaint, Defendants must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,
not the Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of the notice and request for waiver of service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being charged the cost of
personal service.)
(11) The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the
summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or is not returned
by Defendants within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal,
the Marshal must:
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 11 of 12

- 12 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, and
this Order upon Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; and
(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of
service for Defendants, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a
waiver of service of the summons and of the costs subsequently
incurred in effecting service upon Defendants. The costs of service
must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and
must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying
additional copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, or this Order
and for preparing new process receipt and return forms (USM-285),
if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served
Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
(12) Defendants Weddle, Wofford, Bender, and Freeland must answer the
Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided
by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 11th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-03377-SHD-JZB Document 41 Filed 12/11/25 Page 12 of 12