Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01097/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01097-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 This identical copy of the Complaint is more legible.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Curtis Evan Bivins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1097-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second

Amended Complaint and Second Supplemental Complaint, filed November 8, 2012. (Doc.

27)

Plaintiff filed a four-count Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint on May 23, 2012.

(Docs.1, 81

) On June 20, 2012, the Court mandatorily screened the Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12)

The Court liberally construed Plaintiff’s Complaint and ordered Defendants Baird and

Adatutu to answer the Complaint. (Id. at 9) The Court dismissed the remaining claims and

Defendants. The summons for both Defendants were returned unexecuted. (Docs. 15

(Adututu) and 20 (Baird))

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 22, 2012. (Doc. 21) After

screening the First Amended Complaint, as required by statute, the Court ordered Defendant

Case 2:12-cv-01097-ROS Document 29 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Baird to answer Count Three of the First Amended Complaint. (Id. at 10) All remaining

claims and Defendants were dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to return the service

packet for Defendant Baird within 21 days of that Order, namely September 12, 2012. (Id.)

To date, Plaintiff has not returned the service packet.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve all

defendants with a copy of the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing the

complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the

complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made

within a specified time. . . .” If, however, the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to

serve, the district court “[m]ust extend the time for service for an appropriate period . . . .”

Thus, a district court may dismiss an action where a plaintiff fails to show “good cause” for

failing to serve the summons and complaint within the 120-day deadline. Townsel v. Contra

Costa Cnty, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987); In re Sheehan, 2001 WL 682453 (9th Cir.

2001). Ignorance of the existence of the 120-day rule does not constitute “good cause.”

Townsel, 820 F.2d at 320. The Townsel court expressly noted that the 120-day rule “force[s]

parties . . . to be diligent in prosecution their causes of action.” Id.

Plaintiff had an obligation to serve Defendant Baird within 120 days after the date the

complaint was filed. The Complaint was filed May 29, 2012. (Doc. 8) The filing of an

amended complaint generally does not restart the 120-day period. See, e.g., Bolden v. City

of Topeka, Kansas, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (the 120-day period provided by

Rule 4(m) is not restarted by the filing of an amended complaint except as to those

defendants newly added in the amended complaint”) (emphasis added); McGuckin v. United

States, 918 F.2d 811, 813 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Service of process is the mechanism by which a court [actually] acquires the power

to enforce a judgment against a defendant’s person or property.” Robinson v. Heritage

Elementary Sch., 2009 WL 1578313, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2009) (emphasis in original;

internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir.

Case 2:12-cv-01097-ROS Document 29 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

2007)). “In other words, service of process is the means by which a court asserts its

jurisdiction over the person.” Id. (citing Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has

been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.”)). 

On October 22, 2012, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause why Defendant

Baird should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), based

primarily on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior order requiring Plaintiff to

return the service packets within 21 days. (Doc. 25) Plaintiff filed his Response to the Order

to Show Cause on November 8, 2012, doc. 26, in which Plaintiff stated that he has made

several attempts to locate Defendant Baird, but that he has been unable to do so. On the same

day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and a Second

Supplemental Complaint. (Doc 27) Plaintiff also lodged his proposed Second Amended

Complaint with the Clerk of Court. (Doc. 28) In his Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiff

claims he has obtained documentation establishing the identity of the individuals who

violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 27 at 1-2) 

Ultimately, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the proper address for a defendant

in order to effectuate service. Toscana v. Cambra, 2003 WL 21432919, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June

10, 2003). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any information regarding the steps he

has taken to obtain the address of Defendant Baird, such as searching the internet, telephone

books, or other public records to secure a valid current address for Defendant Baird. In an

abundance of caution and after considering the content of Plaintiff’s Response to the Order

to Show Cause, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time in which to complete

service to conduct discovery in an attempt to secure the requisite information needed

regarding Defendant Baird. The Court will allow Plaintiff to have until February 22, 2013

in which to either provide the last known address of Defendant Baird to the United States

Marshal Service or identify the proper employee at the Arizona Department of Corrections

who may be able to provide the service information needed by the Marshal Service to serve

the First Amended Complaint, and/or secure the information through subpoena or otherwise.

Case 2:12-cv-01097-ROS Document 29 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Although Plaintiff is already on notice that this action may be dismissed for failure to serve

Defendant Baird, Plaintiff is reminded that a failure to comply with this Order may result in

a dismissal of this action pursuant to either Rule 4(m) or Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

Complaint, doc. 27, without prejudice, for failure to comply with the District Court of

Arizona’s Local Rules. The Court previously instructed Plaintiff that, pursuant to Rule

15(a)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., Plaintiff may amend his pleading once, as a matter of course “if

the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a

responsive pleading. . . .” He has already amended his complaint once as a matter of course.

Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., further provides that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend

its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the Court’s leave.” Plaintiff’s

reason for seeking leave to amend is that he has “endeavored to be brief in his facts and

allegations under the impression that the plaintiff would file additional pleadings upon

discovery in this case . . . .” (Doc. 27 at 2) 

In the federal court of Arizona, an amended complaint must (1) specify the basis of

the District Court of Arizona’s jurisdiction; (2) contain a short and plain statement of factual

allegations to establish a plausible claim against each defendant, consistent with Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); (3)

clarify the federal and state statute(s), if any, upon which Plaintiff relies to support his

claims; and, (4) comply with the Rules of Practice for the District Court of Arizona (“Local

Rules”). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and

common sense.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted). “But where the well-pleaded facts do not

permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has

Case 2:12-cv-01097-ROS Document 29 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.

8(a)(2).” Id.

Additionally, any amended complaint must comply with the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure (“LRCiv”) 15.1. Local Rule 15.1 provides, in relevant part, that:

A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading . . . must attach a copy of the

proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion . . . which must

indicate in what respect if differs from the pleading which it amends, by

bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text

to be added. The proposed amended pleading is not to incorporate by reference

any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits.

LRCiv 15.1(a). 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, accompanied by the Lodged Second Amended

Complaint, docs. 27-28, do not comply with LRCiv 15.1. The proposed pleading itself does

not indicate how it differs from the First Amended Complaint which significantly hinders the

Court’s ability to compare the original and proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 28) In view

of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a), the Court will deny his motion for leave

to amend without prejudice. According to LRCiv 15.1(a), if a plaintiff seeks to amend a

complaint, he or she must submit a “proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion

. . . which must indicate in what respect if differs from the pleading which it amends, by

bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.”

LRCiv 15.1(a). It is not sufficient to identify the added or deleted text in a supporting motion;

rather, the changes must be indicated on the proposed amended pleading itself. Plaintiff has

not done so. The Court cannot be expected to pore through an amended complaint to

determine the similarities or differences from the prior complaint. Plaintiff has already had

his original complaint and his amended complaint screened by the Court. He was provided

with specific service requirements. He cannot continue to attempt to evade the service

requirements by filing new complaints that do not comply with the District Court’s Local

Rules. The Court will order the Lodged Proposed Second Amended Complaint, doc. 27,

stricken from the record due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:12-cv-01097-ROS Document 29 Filed 01/28/13 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

Complaint and Second Supplemental Complaint, doc. 27, is DENIED without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike Plaintiff’s Lodged Proposed Second Amended

Complaint, doc. 28, from the record. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until Friday, February 22,

2013, to discover by subpoena or otherwise the service information necessary to have

Defendant Baird served by the United States Marshal Service. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue and send

Plaintiff two subpoenas in blank. 

DATED this 28th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01097-ROS Document 29 Filed 01/28/13 Page 6 of 6