Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02210/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02210-2/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

Dwight Murray,

Plaintiff

-vsCorrections Corporation of America 

Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-11-2210-PHX-RCB (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

Failure to Timely Serve - In its Order filed October 1, 2012 (Doc. 32), the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why Defendants Stichen, 

LaClare, and Canteen Services should not be dismissed without prejudice 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 

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

whichever is later.” In addition, the Court’s Scheduling Order, filed July 25, 2012 (Doc. 

27) advised Plaintiff that the presumptive maximum service date was May 3, 2012.

Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to do so has expired. 

Application of Law to Facts - 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 

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 36 Filed 10/23/12 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

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, all but 

the last factor call for a finding of no excusable neglect. 

Danger of Prejudice to Unserved Defendant – The unserved defendants, if 

eventually served, would be brought into litigation in which deadlines either are set to 

soon expire. For example, under the current scheduling order, the discovery requests 

deadline expires December 21, 2012, and the dispositive motions deadline is January 16, 

2013. (Order 7/25/12, Doc. 27.) 

Length of Delay and Impact – Almost five months have expired since the 

expiration of the presumptive service deadline. To extend the time for service, and to 

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 36 Filed 10/23/12 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

introduce new defendants would effectively mean resetting the schedule in this case. 

This case is already almost twelve months old, and the case will soon be nearing 

completion of pretrial proceedings. 

Reason for Delay – Plaintiff has proffered no reason to excuse his delay. 

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

faith, as opposed to simply being dilatory. 

Defendant Canteen Services - Canteen Services has not been identified by the 

Court as a defendant. In the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan, Defendants identify Canteen 

Services as an unserved defendant. (Doc. 30 at 11.) However, no reference to Canteen 

Services, as a defendant or otherwise, is found in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 6). Accordingly, it appears that no dismissal of Canteen Services is required.

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

an extension of time to complete service on Defendants Stichen and LaClare.

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

Defendants Stichen and LaClare, 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 

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 36 Filed 10/23/12 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

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: October 22, 2012

11-2210o Order 12 10 19 re RR Dismiss FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 36 Filed 10/23/12 Page 4 of 4