Jackson v. Joyce et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Darrion Deshon Lee Jackson, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
v. 	)
)
Warden Joseph Joyce, et al., 	) 	Case No.: 1:25-cv-00236
)
Defendant. 	)
Presently before the court is a Motion to Resolve Service Issue filed by Defendant Chad
Rittenbach (“Rittenbach”) on August 25, 2026. (Doc. No. 20). Therein, Rittenbach advised that
after the court directed service of the Summons, Complaint, and attachments on him and upon
receiving the documents, no request for waiver was included. As noted by Rittenbach, in previous
cases, the Clerk’s Office typically includes a “Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service
of a Summons,” as well as a “Waiver of the Service of Summons.” That was not the case here.
Rittenbach asserts that a lack of request for waiver is significant in this matter, as Plaintiff is only
proceeding with a single claim against him in his individual capacity, and so he must be served as
an individual pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(e). Because service under Rule 4(e)
has not occurred, Rittenbach has not been properly served.
Despite this, the North Dakota Office of Attorney General has provided Rittenbach with
notice of the Complaint, and counsel is willing to execute a waiver of service on his behalf should
the Clerk’s Office be directed to provide a Request to Waive Service of Summons. Alternatively,
Rittenbach requests the motion be construed as a waiver of service and for a deadline to answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint be set.
Case 1:25-cv-00236-CRH Document 21 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
It is the typical process of the Clerk’s Office that when directed to serve a Summons, a
Request to Waive Service of a Summons be included. For reasons unknown, the inclusion of such
a waiver was omitted here. Accordingly, for the sake of expediency and judicial economy, the court
is inclined to GRANT Rittenbach’s motion (Doc. No. 20) and shall construe the filing as a waiver
of service. Rittenbach shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by September
25, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of August, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-00236-CRH Document 21 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 2