Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08140/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08140-0/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

Mario William Fragassi,

Plaintiff

-vsUnknown Brown, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-13-8140-PCT-GMS (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

Failure to Timely Serve – In its Order filed November 19, 2013 (Doc. 10), the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why this case should not be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) was filed on May 31, 2013. The Court’s service 

Order (Doc. 7) was entered on August 28, 2013. A review of the Court’s file reflects that 

service was returned unexecuted on September 11, 2013, with the notation that Director 

Brown was deceased. (Doc. 9.) It appears to the undersigned that the two defendants, 

Mohave County Jail Director Brown, and Deputy Director Jeffery Brown, are the same 

person.

Plaintiff has not responded to the order or otherwise shown cause why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to effect service.

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 

Case 3:13-cv-08140-GMS Document 11 Filed 12/11/13 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

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

whichever is later.” 

Dismissal of a party is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to show good cause for 

delays in service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding 

dismissal where no showing of good cause for delay in service). 

At a minimum, "good cause" means excusable neglect. A plaintiff 

may also be required to show the following: (a) the party to be 

served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the 

defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be

severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). 

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). "[I]f 

good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a 

showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 

To determine whether a plaintiff demonstrates excusable neglect, courts use the 

test set forth in Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 394 

(1993), and Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1997). See 

Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198 (holding that plaintiff had established excusable neglect for 

the purposes of Rule 4(m) via the Pioneer-Briones test). The Pioneer-Briones test is as 

follows:

[T]he determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable 

one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice 

to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) 

whether the movant acted in good faith.

Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-1224 (9th Cir.2000). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to make any effort to show good cause or excusable 

neglect. All but the last factor identified in Bateman call for a finding of no excusable 

neglect. 

Danger of Prejudice to Unserved Defendant – Defendant(s), if eventually served, 

Case 3:13-cv-08140-GMS Document 11 Filed 12/11/13 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

will be required to respond to a complaint concerning issues alleged to have arisen at 

least some seven months prior. While this prejudice is limited to the extent that service 

could promptly be completed, there is no reason to anticipate service in the near future. 

This is particularly so, given Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate a desire to proceed with 

the litigation.

Length of Delay and Impact – Almost two months have expired since service was 

returned unexecuted. 

Reason for Delay – The reason of the delay appears to be related to either 

Plaintiff’s abandonment of prosecution of the case, or inability to proceed further with 

service in light of advice that the defendant is deceased.

Good faith - There appears no reason to conclude that Plaintiff has acted in bad 

faith, as opposed to simply being dilatory or stymied in efforts to obtain service. 

Summary - Plaintiff has failed to show good cause or excusable neglect to justify 

an extension of time to complete service on Defendants.

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

Complaint (Doc. 1) and this case 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 

Case 3:13-cv-08140-GMS Document 11 Filed 12/11/13 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

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).

Dated: December 10, 2013

13-8140o Order 13 12 09 re RR re Dismiss FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-08140-GMS Document 11 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 4