Nolan v. Riverstone Health Care, 2017 MT 63 (March 21, 2017) (Sandefur, J.) (5-0, aff’d)
Issue: Whether the district court erred in dismissing Nolan’s complaint for failure to comply with the service of process rules.
Short Answer: No.
Facts: In February 2013, Nolan filed a pro se complaint against RiverStone alleging that it violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment) by denying him access to a prescribed pain medication (Hydrocodone) while incarcerated. Nolan subsequently filed additional pro se documents and mailed some to RiverStone’s general business address. In April 2014, after obtaining issuance of a summons, Nolan mailed the summons to RiverStone along with purported amendments to his original complaint. The attempted mail service did not include his original complaint or an amended complaint.…