Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406-1/pdf.json

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

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shalek E. Modee,

Plaintiff

-vsCorizon Health, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-19-0406-PHX-DLR (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

re Dismiss Loyd

Plaintiff has failed to timely serve Defendant Loyd. This matter is before the 

undersigned magistrate judge on referral for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Because the appropriate resolution of motions is potentially dispositive of some 

of Plaintiff’s claims, the undersigned proceeds by way of a Report & Recommendation to 

the referring district judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

A. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action on January 28, 2019, by filing his Complaint (Doc. 

1). On May 14, 2019, the Court screened the Complaint, dismissed various claims and 

defendants, and ordered service on and answers from Defendants Corizon, Ryan, 

Buchholz, Johnson, Rainey, Natasha, Gertz, Tana, Smith, Hawley, Gay, Flake, Weigel, 

Demery, Gowey, Chamberlain, Romero, Scott, Nieblas, Loyd, and Vinson.

Service has since been completed on and/or answers filed by Defendants Corizon, 

Ryan, Buchholz, Rainey, Gertz, Smith, Gay, Flake, Weigel, Demery, Chamberlain, 

Romero, Scott and Neiblas. Service is still outstanding on Defendants Tana, and Hawley. 

A separate Report & Recommendation has been issued regarding motions to exted time to 

served Defendants Natasha, Gowey, Vinson, and Johnson, recommending they be 

dismissed. That leaves Defendant Loyd.

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 180 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

First attempts at service were returned unexecuted on Defendant Loyd on July 

22, 2019 (Doc. 51). On Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 48), a last known address was ordered 

from Corizon Inc. for Loyd (Order 8/13/19, Doc. 88) A last known home address was 

provided under seal on August 27, 2019 (Docs. 98, 103). However, service on Loyd had 

been previously attempted at a residential address provided to the U.S. Marshals Service 

by Corizon. The Court declined to order service until the Court could confirming with the 

Marshals that they had not attempted service at the address now provided. (Order 8/28/19, 

Doc. 107.) Plaintiff moved for service at the address, and the Court’s staff had been 

advised that service was previously attempted at the sealed address provided, but only 

once. Accordingly, and in light of the delay, personal service at the home address was 

ordered. (Order 9/16/19, Doc. 123.) 

Second attempts at service were again attempted on Loyd. However, service was 

returned unexecuted on October 10, 2019 (Doc. 143). 

On October 22, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff 14 days to respond to an order to 

show cause why Loyd should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m) for 

failure to timely serve. (Order 10/22/19, Doc. 157.) 

Plaintiff has not responded. 

B. APPLICABLE STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: 

If 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. But if the plaintiff 

shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for 

service for an appropriate period. 

Local Civil Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), which governs prisoner civil rights suits, provides 

that service shall be completed by the “maximum date to effect service, pursuant to Rule 

4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or sixty (60) days from filing of service order, 

whichever is later.” Under these rules, Plaintiff had through July 15, 2019 to complete 

service.

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 180 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

Because Rule 4(m) does not establish a cutoff for service, but rather a time after 

which consideration of dismissal becomes appropriate, the normal standards of “good 

cause” under Rule 6(b) do not apply. 

Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the 

district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good 

cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, 

the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of 

excusable neglect. Exercise of discretion to extend time to complete 

service is appropriate when, for example, a statute-of-limitations bar 

would operate to prevent re-filing of the action.

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir.2009) (internal citations omitted). 

C. APPLICATION OF LAW

1. No Good Cause

Under the first avenue for relief from delays in service, the court must grant the 

extension on a showing of “good cause.” Rule 4 does not define “good cause.” The Ninth 

Circuit has recognized that “[a]t a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.”

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). Implicit is the determination that 

some causes don’t involve neglect and thus need not be “excused,” e.g. diligent but 

unsuccessful efforts to timely serve.

The undersigned does not find good cause for the failure to effect timely service. 

Although Plaintiff has taken past steps to effect service, he fails to show any recent or 

current efforts, or that future steps are planned or possible which are likely to allow service 

on these defendants to be completed.

2. No Excusable Neglect

Notwithstanding Rule 4(m), where "good cause does not exist, the court may in its 

discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for service." 

Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3rd Cir. 1995). The applicable 

standard is “a showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198. 

Plaintiff fails to offer anything to show excusable neglect for his failure to timely 

serve Loyd. The undersigned finds none.

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 180 Filed 11/18/19 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Defendant

Loyd be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered 

a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver 

of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 

1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

In addition, the parties are cautioned Local Civil Rule 7.2(e)(3) provides that 

“[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and Recommendation 

issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages.” 

Dated: November 18, 2019

19-0406o Order 19 10 21 re RR re Dismiss Loyd.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 180 Filed 11/18/19 Page 4 of 4