# Mincy v. Hamilton County Justice Center

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · December 3, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10379084

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** December 3, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10379084

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the difficulties that pro se, incarcerated plaintiffs face when trying to identify officer defendants while filing lawsuits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Eugene Mincy,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-00822

Hamilton County Justice Center, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on both the Magistrate Judge's October 4, 2021 Order
and Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 36) and a separate October 4, 2021 R&R
(Doc. 38).
No one filed objections to the October 4, 2021 R&R that recommends that Defendant
Hamilton County Justice Center's ("HCJC") Motion to Dismiss be granted, Plaintiff's Motion
to Amend be denied, and the Court certify that an appeal of any Court order adopting that
R&R would not be taken in good faith. (Doc. 38). The Court will thus adopt that R&R.
Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey filed objections (Doc. 39) to the October 4, 2021
Order and R&R that orders Sheriff McGuffey to join this matter for limited discovery
purposes, and also recommends that Plaintiff's Motions for Default be denied and the
Court certify that an appeal of any Court Order adopting that R&R would not be taken in
good faith (Doc. 36). Plaintiff did not respond to the Sheriff's objections and the time to
do so has passed. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When the Court receives timely objections to a magistrate judge's R&R on a
nondispositive matter, "the district judge in the case must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The "clearly erroneous" standard applies to the
magistrate judge's factual findings and the "contrary to law" standard applies to the legal
conclusions. Sheppard v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr., Inst., 1:12-CV-198, 2013 WL 146364,
*5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2013). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, "although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id. (quoting United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Legal conclusions should be modified or set aside
if they "contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes,
or case precedent." Id. (quoting Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio
1992)).

II. BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed his pro se prisoner civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff listed the following Defendants: the HCJC,
Correctional Officer ("C/O") Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson.
(Doc. 3 PageID 32). Plaintiff alleges that, on April 24, 2020, while he was a pretrial detainee
at the HCJC,1 several HCJC corrections officers, including Defendants Wade and
Tanniruthard, used excessive force against Plaintiff following a dispute over Plaintiff's cell

1 Plaintiff is a former inmate at the HCJC, where the alleged events in this prisoner civil rights lawsuit
occurred, and is a current inmate at the Butler County Jail. (Doc. 4).
2
assignment. (Id. PageID 36-40). Plaintiff alleges that HCJC corrections officers, after
attempting to ram Plaintiff into a door, slammed Plaintiff into a metal bed while handcuffed
and an officer then placed a knee on Plaintiff's neck while other officers simultaneously
twisted Plaintiff's wrists, punched Plaintiff, and cut Plaintiff's back with keys. (Id.) Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants Lt. Murrell and Nurse Elesson denied Plaintiff medical treatment
following this incident. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendants' conduct amounts
to excessive use of force in violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Doc. 3).
On November 4, 2020, the Magistrate Judge authorized Plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and, following a review pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 805, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b),
ordered that Plaintiff's complaint could proceed. (Docs. 2, 4).
On November 23, 2020, the Magistrate Judge ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve2
the five Defendants. (Doc. 7). Pursuant to that Order, the U.S. Marshal attempted service
via certified mail addressed to Defendants at the HCJC. (Docs. 14, 15, 25).

On April 8, 2021, the U.S. Marshal filed proof of service indicating that the summons
for Defendant HCJC was executed and the summonses for Defendants C/O Wade,
C/O Tanniruthard, and Lt. Murrell were returned unexecuted. (Docs. 14, 15). On June 2,
2021, the U.S. Marshal filed proof that the summons for Defendant Nurse Elesson was
returned unexecuted. (Doc. 25).3

2 The Magistrate Judged ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the complaint, summons, the Order
granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the November 23, 2020 Order on Defendants.
(Doc. 7).

3 The Court assumes that the lengthy periods between the mailing of the five packets and their respective
returns were due to the service impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States Postal
Service and not due to any fault of the U.S. Marshal, Plaintiff, or Defendants.
3
On July 20, 2021, the Magistrate Judge again ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve4
C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson. (Doc. 28). Pursuant to that
Order, the U.S. Marshal attempted service via regular mail with such mail directed to
Kathleen Bailey, the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office's Chief Assistant Prosecuting

Attorney. (Doc. 28).
On August 12, 2021, Bailey responded to the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 29
PageID 142). Bailey acknowledged the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office's agreement
with the Court regarding requesting waivers of service for pro se and in forma pauperis
plaintiffs. (Id.) Baily stated that, pursuant to that agreement, her office conducted an inquiry5
into the employment status of C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson.
(Id.) Bailey stated that her office is "unable to accept a waiver of service on any of the
named defendants," is unable "to deduce" whether the given names are first or last names,
"cannot engage in this process without a full name," and "need[s] a full name to proceed."
(Id.) Bailey returned the original summonses unsigned. (Doc. 29).

On August 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his
complaint should not be dismissed for lack of service on C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard,
Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson. (Doc. 30).
Plaintiff filed a timely response in which he explained that he does not know the first
names of C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson. (Doc. 32). He

4 The Magistrate Judged ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the complaint, summons, waiver of
service of process form, and the July 20, 2021 Order on the remaining Defendants. (Doc. 28).

5 Bailey did not elaborate on what steps this inquiry involved. See (id.)

4
explained that, contrary to her assertions otherwise, Bailey knows that "Wade,"
"Tanniruthard," "Murrell," and "Elesson" are each last names and HCJC inmates do not
know HCJC staff members' first names, as HCJC corrections officers only wear their last
names on their uniform shirts, inmates are prohibited from asking staff for their full names,

and, if Plaintiff were to ask a staff member, including Defendants, for his or her full name,
Plaintiff could be put in confinement or receive a disciplinary ticket for trying to establish a
relationship. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office to "pull up the log
sheet or work schedule for that day and time of the incident" and "see who worked where
and when," or provide him with that information and he would be able to pick out the proper
Defendants' full names. (Id. PageID 247, 249). He maintains that this matter should not be
dismissed. (Doc. 32).
After Plaintiff's timely response to the Magistrate Judge's Show Cause Order,
Defendant HCJC filed a response in opposition to one of Plaintiff's multiple motions to
appoint counsel. (Doc. 33); see (Docs. 5, 6, 13, 20, 31). In it, Defendant HCJC asserted

that Plaintiff "is still unable to identify the parties allegedly responsible for his injuries to the
extent that would allow the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office to make inquiries6
regarding waivers of service." (Doc. 33 PageID 253). Defendant HCJC, represented by the
Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, then stated that "identifying the proper parties is . . .
not a particularly complex issue." (Id. PageID 254).
In the October 4, 2020 Order and R&R, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff has
not perfected service on C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson, and

6 Defendant HCJC did not elaborate on what steps such inquiries would involve. See (Doc. 33).
5
Plaintiff's motions for default judgment should thus be denied. (Doc. 36 PageID 263-64);
see (Docs. 11, 16). The Magistrate Judge also found that Plaintiff has taken reasonable
steps to learn the identities of the named Defendants and, despite those efforts, has not
yet learned their identities to perfect service. (Doc. 36 PageID 264). The Magistrate Judge

found that, under these circumstances, it is proper to give Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct
limited discovery to determine the full names of C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell,
and Nurse Elesson, and it is proper to permit service of the complaint on a high-ranking
official who could identify those Defendants through discovery. (Id.) (first citing Murray v.
Ohio Dep't of Corr., No. 1:14-CV-168, 2014 WL 1382401, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2014);
then citing Robinson v. Doe, No. 1:07-cv-729, 2009 WL 650383, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10,
2009); and then citing Mosby v. Doe, No. 08-CV-677, 2009 WL 192502, at *1 (W.D. Wis.
Jan. 27, 2009)).
The Magistrate Judge ordered service on Sheriff McGuffey, for the limited purposes
of discovery, as Sheriff McGuffey is the high-ranking official who can identify C/O Wade,

C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson for whom Plaintiff has provided last
names. (Doc. 36 PageID 264-65). The Magistrate Judge explained that, once Sheriff
McGuffey is served and responds7 to the complaint, Plaintiff can then serve limited
discovery on Sheriff McGuffey to determine the identities, i.e., full names, of C/O Wade,
C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson.8 (Doc. 36 PageID 265). The Magistrate

7 Sheriff McGuffey may, inter alia, waive the right to reply. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1).

8 Plaintiff may, inter alia, reiterate his request that the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office "pull up the log
sheet or work schedule for th[e] day and time of the incident" and "see who worked where and when," and
provide him with that information. (Doc. 32 PageID 247, 249).
6
Judge explained that, once Sheriff McGuffey completes the contemplated discovery,
Plaintiff will be required to amend his complaint, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,
to include the Defendants' full names and Sheriff McGuffey will be dismissed thereafter.
(Id.). Sheriff McGuffey, represented by the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, objects.

(Doc. 39).
Before turning to the analysis section, the Court notes that this is not the first time in
which a plaintiff—who is incarcerated, proceeding pro se, proceeding in forma pauperis,
and suing HCJC staff members9—has had issues identifying the full name of a defendant,
or defendants, who the plaintiff alleges violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights while
incarcerated at the HCJC. E.g., Gibson v. City of Cincinnati, Docket No. 1:21-CV-292
(S.D. Ohio); Adams v. Hamilton Cty. Just. Ctr., No. 1:20-CV-601, 2020 WL 7123028, at *4-
5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 4, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-601, 2021
WL 414947 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2021).

III. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), when a plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis, the district court must direct that service be effected by a U.S. Marshal,
Deputy U.S. Marshal, or other person or officer specifically appointed by the court for that
purpose. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3). Rule 4, though, does not provide guidance regarding a
district court's obligation, if any, when the initial attempt to serve process is not effectuated.
Fitts v. Sicker, 232 F. App'x 436, 443 (6th Cir. 2007).

9 The Court recognizes that Sheriff McGuffey does not directly employ nurses, and the Hamilton County
Prosecutor's Office is not statutory counsel for the nurses at HCJC. (Doc. 29 PageID 142). However, Sheriff
McGuffey is in a position to know or determine the full names of the medical professionals responsible for
the inmates' medical care at the HCJC.
7
Although a district court is not obligated to actively seek out the name or address of
a defendant so that service can be effectuated, a district court may undertake measures to
discover the identity and address of an unserved defendant. Id. at 443-44; Olmstead v.
Fentress Cty., No. 2:16-CV-00046, slip. op. at 2-3 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016); see, e.g.,

Parker v. Keller, No. 2:17-CV-00102, 2019 WL 2125542, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2019),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17-CV-102, 2019 WL 2120262 (W.D. Mich.
May 15, 2019) (ordering a corporation, that previously contracted with the Michigan
Department of Corrections to provide food services, to provide the U.S. Marshal with the
last known addresses of two individual defendants); Brown v. Mohr, No. 2:13-CV-0006,
2014 WL 1686194, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2014), report and recommendation adopted
as modified, No. 2:13-CV-006, 2014 WL 5446003 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2014) (directing
defendants to provide the U.S. Marshal with three individual defendants' last known
addresses). But see Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (a plaintiff bears the
initial responsibility of identifying a defendant with sufficient particularity for the U.S.

Marshal to attempt service); FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) ("The title of the complaint must name all
the parties.").
Sheriff McGuffey contends that Plaintiff has not identified the individual Defendants
with sufficient particularity, and it is thus improper for the Court to undertake measures to
discover the full names of those unserved defendants. (Doc. 39). The Court disagrees. In
Plaintiff's requests for assistance with retrieving the Defendants' full names, Plaintiff has
supplied the Defendants' respective last names, the date that the alleged events occurred,
the approximate time that the alleged events occurred, the specific location in the HCJC
where the alleged events occurred, and, for some Defendants, physical descriptions of their
8
gender, skin color, and weight.10 (Doc. 3 PageID 32, 36, 38, 39) ("C/O Wade;"
"C/O Tanniruthard;" "Lt. Murrell"; "Nurse Elesson"), (Doc. 3 PageID 38) (Plaintiff concedes
that the name "C/O Tanniruthard" may be misspelled), (the alleged events occurred on
April 24, 2020, at approximately 1:45 PM, in the 51 South Building C-Pod near Cell 36),

("C/O Wade" is a male); (Doc. 23 PageID 114-15) ("C/O Tanniruthard" is a male),
("Lt. Murrell" is an African American female), ("Nurse Elesson" is a female who works in the
medical unit); (Doc. 24 PageID 121) ("C/O Wade" weighs over 240 pounds); (Doc. 30
PageID 246-47) (Plaintiff clarifying that the last name "Tanniruthard" is one name, should
not be separated as "Tanni Ruthard," and could be just "Ruthard"); (Doc. 32) ("C/O Wade"
is African American).
Plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to learn the Defendants' full names to provide
the U.S. Marshal will sufficient information to effectuate service. Plaintiff, on more than one
occasion, sought assistance from the Court in obtaining Defendants' full names because
he was restricted from obtaining Defendants' full names while detained at the HCJC, his

motions to appoint counsel were denied,11 and the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office's
demands Defendants' full names before conducting an inquiry into the employment status
of the Defendants. (Docs. 23, 24, 31). Plaintiff's requests for assistance are appropriate in
light of the facts of this case, i.e., a case brought by a pro se plaintiff who is proceeding in
forma pauperis, is currently incarcerated, has identified the individual Defendants with

10 Plaintiff also states that there were three other HCJC corrections officers involved in the alleged incident,
separate from the four named Defendants, but that those corrections officers refused to give Plaintiff any
portion of their names and did not have their last names identified on their uniform shirts. (Doc. 3 PageID 38,
39) (identifying C/O # 1794 as an involved officer who refused to name himself).

11 To be sure, the Court finds those denials to be proper.
9
sufficient particularity, and has taken reasonable steps to learn the identities of the named
Defendants. See, e.g., Jessie v. Phaneuf, No. 5:21-CV-11201, 2021 WL 4078653, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2021).
Sheriff McGuffey next argues that the Magistrate Judge lacked jurisdiction to add

the Sherriff and inappropriately advocated for Plaintiff by doing so. (Doc. 39). The Court
disagrees, as magistrate judges have discretion to allow early, limited discovery to
determine the full names of unknown defendants; Sheriff McGuffey should be able to
identify the Defendants' full names in light of the information that Plaintiff has supplied; this
is "not a particularly complex issue" (Doc. 33 PageID 254); and this method, adding a
supervisory defendant to the lawsuit for the sole purpose of identifying the full names of
subordinates with alleged liability, is the most expedient option to identify the full names of
the remaining Defendants and for the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service of process.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff could, among other options, submit a public
records request under the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio Revised Code § 149.43, et seq.,

to Sheriff McGuffey for the April 24, 2020 log sheet that details the full names of the staff
who worked at the HJCJ on that date, or file a motion with the Court for permission to issue
a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 for Sheriff McGuffey to produce
such an April 24, 2020 log sheet. See Green v. Woodall, No. 1:17-0083, slip. op. at 1-2
(M.D. Tenn. Jan. 1, 2018) (ordering the pro se incarcerated plaintiff who was proceeding in
forma pauperis to submit to the Court "a list of specific requests for documents, information,
or questions that are necessary to identify the defendants for the single claim that has been
allowed to go forward," and explaining that, "[u]pon the receipt of this list, the Court will
direct that a subpoena duces tecum issue to the appropriate prison official or agency
10
regarding this information" and the "Plaintiff will thereafter be given a deadline to amend
his complaint."); cf. Mattox v. Vill. of Geneva on Lake, No. 1:05-CV-2325, 2006 WL
3762096, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2006) (holding that the Ohio Public Records Act "does
not provide an absolute privilege against discovery requests in civil litigation."). The Court

could also direct the U.S. Marshal to make reasonable efforts to locate the full names of
C/O Wade, C/O Tanniruthard, Lt. Murrell, and Nurse Elesson including, but not limited to,
the use of publicly available information. See Morales v. Burke, No. 5:17-CV-124, slip op.
at 1-2 (D. Vt. Mar. 19, 2018).
The Court, however, believes that adding Sherriff McGuffey as a party for the limited
purpose of identifying the full names of the Defendants is the more pragmatic and
expeditious option that preserves both this Court's and the U.S. Marshal's limited resources
while acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations that Plaintiff raises in his
complaint. See Adams, 2020 WL 7123028, at *4-5 (McFarland, J.; Bowman, M.J.); Slocum
v. Bear, No. 1:18-CV-423, 2019 WL 2234227, at *3, 6 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2019), report and

recommendation adopted, No. 1:18-CV-423, 2019 WL 2233633 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2019)
(Barrett, J.; Litkovitz, M.J.); Murray, 2014 WL 1382401, at *4-5 (Black, J.; Litkovitz, M.J.);
Williams v. Harris, No. 1:11-CV-362, 2011 WL 3667438, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio June 15, 2011),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:11-CV-362, 2011 WL 3667389 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
22, 2011) (Dlott, J.; Litkovitz, M.J.); see also Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2nd Cir.
1997) (recognizing the difficulties that pro se, incarcerated plaintiffs face when trying to
identify officer defendants while filing lawsuits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983); cf. Odum v.
Knox Cty., Tenn., 902 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990) ("The county and the sheriff were served with
the complaint, which contained sufficient facts for them to discover the correct defendants
11
with a minimal investigation, all the defendants have been represented by the same
counsel, and defendants have alleged no specific prejudice to their defense."); Berndt v.
State of Tenn., 796 F.2d 879, 882 (6th Cir. 1986) ("This court has already ruled that [the
plaintiff] raised substantially cognizable claims in his complaint. It would be a miscarriage

of justice to preclude this pro se plaintiff from seeking redress for his alleged injuries on a
procedural defect, particularly when the complaint, in substance, clearly indicates that the
staff and authorities of L[akeshore Mental Health Institute] are the real parties-
defendants.").
In sum, the Court holds that the Magistrate Judge's findings of facts and conclusions
of law in the October 4, 2021 Order and R&R (Doc. 36) are neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As a final matter,
Plaintiff is cautioned that he should continue to exercise diligence in attempting to procure
additional information regarding the names and addresses of the remaining Defendants, in
requesting additional time to serve Defendants, and in monitoring the activity in this case.

He is on notice that his failure to do so may result in the dismissal of those Defendants from
this action for his failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IV. CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED that the October 4, 2021 R&R (Doc. 38) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. Consequently, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hamilton County Justice Center's
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 24) is
DENIED; and the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this
Order adopting that R&R would not be taken in good faith.
It is further ORDERED that Sheriff McGuffey's Objections (Doc. 39) are
12
OVERRULED and the October 4, 2021 Order and R&R (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. Specifically, it is ORDERED that
• the U.S. Marshal serve a copy of the complaint, summons, the October 4, 2021
Order and R&R, and this Order upon Sheriff McGuffey;

• Sheriff McGuffey, within thirty (30) days of the date of the issuance of this Order,
shall file a response to Plaintiff's complaint;
• Plaintiff shall then be permitted to serve discovery on Sheriff McGuffey to
determine the full names of the unserved Defendants;
• Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the four individual Defendants' full names,
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint12 with the Defendants' full names;
• Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen it and direct
the U.S. Marshal to arrange for service of the appropriate papers on Defendants;

• Plaintiff's Motions for Default (Docs. 11, 16) are both DENIED;
• the Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Kathleen Bailey; and
• the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order
adopting that R&R would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s Michael R. Barrett______
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court

12 The amended complaint will replace the initial complaint and will not supplement the initial complaint.
13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10379084. Public record. Not legal advice.