Full Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two November 10, 2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JEROMY POLSTON, No. 60982-7-II Appellant, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a legal entity; OFFICER NICHOLAS KORZILLUS, MEDICAL PROVIDER JOHN DOE, Respondents. CHE, J. — Jeromy Polston filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice and negligence against the Department of Corrections and one of its officers. Upon the defendants’ motion, the trial court dismissed Polston’s complaint under CR 12(b)(5) for failure to properly serve a summons and complaint. Polston appeals, arguing that it was not his fault that service was never perfected. We disagree and affirm. FACTS On February 6, 2025, Polston filed a complaint against the Department of Corrections and a Department of Corrections officer, Nicholas Korzillus (collectively, the State), alleging medical malpractice and negligence stemming from events in March 2022. Polston contends that No. 60982-7-II he sent his complaint and summons to a contract attorney with the Department of Corrections who agreed to serve the State. On April 1, 2025, the State moved to dismiss Polston’s complaint under CR 12(b)(5) for failure to properly serve the summons and complaint. On April 3, 2025, Polston attempted to file a motion for permission to serve the State by certified mail. But Polston failed to properly note the motion for a hearing, and it was never considered by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. Polston appeals. ANALYSIS Preliminarily, we note that Polston is self-represented. “Courts hold [self-represented] litigants to the same standards as attorneys.” In re Vulnerable Adult Pet. of Winter, 12 Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020). RAP 10.3(a)(5) and (6) require a fair statement of facts supported by citations to the record, as well as legal arguments supported with authority and record citations, respectively. We do not consider conclusory arguments unsupported by citation to authority. Joy v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 170 Wn. App. 614, 629, 285 P.3d 187 (2012). Where a party cites no authority for an assertion, we may presume none exists. DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962). An inadequately briefed assignment of error is deemed waived. Milligan v. Thompson, 110 Wn. App. 628, 635, 42 P.3d 418 (2002). 2 No. 60982-7-II Appellate review also requires a sufficient record. RAP 9.2(b). The appellant bears the burden of providing a record so that this court has all the evidence relevant to the issue before it. Tacoma S. Hosp., LLC v. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co., 19 Wn. App. 2d 210, 220, 494 P.3d 450 (2021). Polston appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his case for failure to properly serve the State. But 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. Moreover, Polston fails to identify any error in the trial court’s decision. Essentially, Polston argues that it was not his fault that service was not completed. Such contentions, unsupported by citations to the record or any legal authority, are insufficient to show that the trial court erred by dismissing Polston’s complaint under CR 12(b)(5). However, barring compelling circumstances, we should not decide a case based on noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. at 221. Therefore, we address the issue of whether the trial court erred. We review de novo whether service of process was proper. Scanlan v. Townsend, 181 Wn.2d 838, 847, 336 P.3d 1155 (2014). “Serving a summons and complaint commences a civil action and establishes a trial court’s jurisdiction over the action.” Spencer v. Franklin Hills Health-Spokane, LLC, 3 Wn.3d 165, 170, 548 P.3d 193 (2024). “The purpose of service is to provide due process, which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. However, actual notice alone is insufficient to show valid service. Gerean v. Martin-Joven, 108 Wn. App. 963, 972, 33 P.3d 427 (2001). 3 No. 60982-7-II “Personal service must be accomplished according to statutory procedure.” Spencer, 3 Wn.3d at 170. RCW 4.92.020 provides that in an action for claims against the State, service of a summons and complaint “shall be served in the manner prescribed by law upon the attorney general, or by leaving the summons and complaint in the office of the attorney general with an assistant attorney general.” For claims against State employees who are individually named as defendants, a summons should generally be served “to the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy of the summons at the house of his or her usual abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein.” Former RCW 4.28.080(16) (2015).1 When a defendant challenges service of process, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of proper service. Northwick v. Long, 192 Wn. App. 256, 261, 364 P.3d 1067 (2015). Polston does not dispute that he failed to perfect service. He simply contends that he gave his complaint and summons to a contract attorney with the Department of Corrections, who he alleges agreed to serve the documents but failed to properly complete service. Polston acknowledges that the complaint and summons were incorrectly served but contends “I had nothing to do nor am I at fault.” Br. of Appellant at 6. 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. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed Polston’s complaint under CR 12(b)(5). 1 RCW 4.28.080(16) applies if, as here, none of the enumerated situations in RCW 4.28.080(1)- (15) and (17) apply. 4 No. 60982-7-II We affirm. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Che, J. We concur: Maxa, P.J. Lee, J. 5