In a recent ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Jeromy Polston's medical malpractice and negligence complaint against the Department of Corrections and one of its officers. The court ruled that Polston failed to properly serve the summons and complaint, which is a critical step in initiating a legal action. This decision affects Polston and potentially others in similar situations who may not follow proper legal procedures.

The case, Polston v. Department of Corrections, was filed on November 10, 2026, under docket number 60982-7-II. Polston, who represented himself in court, argued that he should not be held responsible for the failure to serve the necessary documents. However, the court found that he did not meet the legal requirements for service and dismissed his case.

Polston's complaint stemmed from events that occurred in March 2022, when he alleged medical malpractice and negligence by the Department of Corrections and Officer Nicholas Korzillus. He claimed to have sent his complaint and summons to a contract attorney with the Department of Corrections, who he believed would serve the documents on the State. However, the State moved to dismiss the case, citing improper service.

On April 1, 2025, the State filed a motion to dismiss Polston's complaint under CR 12(b)(5), which allows for dismissal due to failure to properly serve a summons and complaint. Polston attempted to file a motion for permission to serve the State by certified mail, but he did not properly note the motion for a hearing, and it was never considered by the trial court.

After a hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss, leading Polston to appeal the decision. The appellate court, led by Judge Che, reviewed the case and noted that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. They emphasized that Polston's appeal did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which require a fair statement of facts supported by citations to the record and legal arguments backed by authority.

The court stated, "Polston has not complied with RAP 9.2(b) or RAP 10.3(a)(5) and (6). His brief makes no citations to the record and fails to cite any authority to support his argument for relief." This lack of compliance contributed to the court's decision to affirm the trial court's dismissal of Polston's complaint.

In its analysis, the court explained that proper service of process is essential to establish a trial court's jurisdiction over a case. The court referenced Washington law, which stipulates that for claims against the State, service must be made on the attorney general or at their office. The court also noted that personal service must be accomplished according to statutory procedures.

Ultimately, the court found that Polston did not demonstrate that he had complied with the relevant rules and statutes regarding service of process. The court concluded, "Polston failed to carry his evidentiary burden to make a prima facie showing of any compliance with the relevant rules and statutes regarding service of process." As a result, the dismissal of his complaint was upheld.

This ruling has significant implications for individuals pursuing legal action against the State or its employees. It emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures, particularly regarding the service of documents. Failure to adhere to these requirements can lead to dismissal of a case, regardless of the merits of the underlying claims.

Looking ahead, Polston may have limited options for further action. The court's decision appears to be final, and while he could seek to appeal to a higher court, the likelihood of success would depend on his ability to demonstrate compliance with the necessary legal standards. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.