Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00378/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00378-0/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

Michael Carl Allen,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-14-0378-PHX-SPL (JFM)

Order and

Report and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Complete Service, 

filed June 29, 2015 (Doc. 81). Plaintiff seeks to extend the time for service, and to 

obtain service on Defendants Manzano, Johonson, and Hendrix via the Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office Legal Liaison. No response to the motion has been filed by Defendant 

Modi.

The Court’s Scheduling Order, filed October 24, 2014 (Doc. 31) advised Plaintiff 

that “[p]ursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B), the presumptive 

maximum service date is August 12, 2014 (the later of 120 days from the filing date or 

60 days from the service Order date).” (Order 10/24/14, Doc. 31.) Subsequently, on 

January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint adding Defendants 

Manzano, Johonson, and Hendrix.

In an Order filed April 27, 2015 (Doc. 63), the Court observed that service on 

defendants Hendrix, Jhonson, and Manzano were all returned unexecuted on March 17, 

2015. (Docs. 55, 56, 57.) The Court further observed that Plaintiff did not appear to be 

continuing to prosecute his claims against these defendants, and under the applicable 

rules, service was due to be completed by Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Plaintiff was ordered 

to show cause why they should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 83 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff responded (Doc. 66) asserting his having sent service 

packets, and delays from his sentencing on unrelated matters.

Plaintiff took no further action to purse service on these unserved defendants.

On June 4, 2015, the Court issued an order observing the intervening expiration of 

the service deadline, on May 26, 2015. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why the 

unserved defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). (Order 6/4/15, Doc. 70.) In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Complete Service 

(Doc. 74), which the Court construed as a motion to extend the time for service and set a 

response deadline. The Court further extended the deadline for a response to the Order 

to Show Cause. (Order 6/8/15, Doc. 76.) On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Response 

(Doc. 77) to the Order to Show Cause. 

On June 23, 2015, without a response from Defendant, the Court denied the 

Motion to Complete Service, finding that Plaintiff had proffered no good cause for his 

delay in completing service beyond his having earlier provided service packets. The 

Court further declined to make a discretionary extension of time for service based on the 

prejudice to any newly joined defendant in light of the advanced status of the case, and 

absence of any notice to the unserved defendants. (Order 6/23/15, Doc. 79.) 

ORDER

One week later, on June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Extend 

Time to Complete Service (Doc. 81), again seeking to extend the time for service. 

Plaintiff argues he has acted “to the best of his knowledge,” and asks for consideration of 

the “complications of confinement.” He again references having sent the original service 

packets in March of this year, complains that he was relocated in March, 2015, and his 

general diligence in this matter. He asserts he has notified the defendants of a possible 

civil action through his grievances, asserts that any insufficiency in the service packets 

should be attributed to errors by the jail in forwarding his service packets, that he does 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 83 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 6
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

not have access to e-filing, and his response to the order to show cause was delayed 

through a clerical error. He asserts that the address for all three defendants is “MCSO 

Legal Liaison,” and asks for 30 days to complete service at that address.

The Court finds nothing in this latest motion to justify an expansion of the time 

for service. In deciding whether to dismiss a case or extend the time period for service 

under Rule 4(m), the court employs a two-step analysis. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 

1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). First, if there is a showing of good cause for the delay, the 

court must extend the time period. Id. Second, if there is no showing of good cause, the 

court has discretion to either dismiss without prejudice or extend the time period. Id.

Plaintiff still points to no good cause for his delays in timely seeking service. At 

best, he points to one week in March, 2015 while he was being relocated, and delays 

after the deadline for service had already expired. He points to nothing in the 

intervening two months to explain his failure to take any action to pursue timely service.

He makes vague references to delays in his various filings. But the relevant delay is not 

in what Plaintiff has done, but in what he has not done, i.e. taken affirmative action to 

complete service on the unserved defendants.

Moreover, he still proffers no hope for completion of service. At best, he urges 

service on Defendants via the MCSO Legal Liaison. But Plaintiff proffers no reason to 

believe such service attempts will be successful. For example, he does not suggest that 

the unserved defendants work at that office, or that the MCSO Legal Liaison’s office has 

been authorized to accept service for these defendants.

Further, in the interim, all the pretrial deadlines have expired, save only the final 

pretrial motions deadline. Defendant Modi’s Motion for Summary Judgment is now 

fully briefed and pending before District Judge Logan. 

Under these circumstances, the undersigned still can find no good cause to justify 

an extension of time for service, nor a basis for a discretionary extension.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 83 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Complete Service, filed June 29, 2015 (Doc. 81) is DENIED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Failure to Timely Serve - 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 the foregoing rules, service in this matter should have been 

completed by Tuesday, May 26, 2015. As discussed hereinabove, Plaintiff has repeated 

notice of this deadline, and repeated opportunities to show good cause to extend it.

Dismissal Appropriate - 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). 

The undersigned has determined hereinabove that good cause to extend has not

been show, and consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for service has been 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 83 Filed 08/07/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

denied.

To determine whether a plaintiff demonstrates excusable neglect to avoid 

dismissal, 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 - Defendants, if eventually served, 

would be brought into litigation in which all deadlines either are expired or soon will be. 

Although Plaintiff contends Defendants received notice of an expected suit, he proffers 

nothing to show they have received notice that they have in fact been sued.

Length of Delay and Impact - Over five months have expired since service on 

these defendants was returned unexecuted. To extend the time for service, and to 

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

This case is already over 17 months old, the time for service expired over two months 

ago, and the case is nearing completion, with all but the final pretrial motions deadline

expired. Prejudice to the opposing parties would result from the 11th hour addition of a 

new defendant, on a separate claim not being litigated by the other parties.

Reason for Delay - Plaintiff's single attempt at pursuing service on these 

defendants does not demonstrate diligence, nor provide sufficient reason to explain the 

extent of the delay. Rather, the delay is attributable to simple neglect. Plaintiff points to 

delays with his filings, but shows no efforts to identify accurate addresses for service or 

any efforts to complete service.

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 83 Filed 08/07/15 Page 5 of 6
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

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

faith, as opposed to simply being dilatory. 

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

an extension of time to complete service on Defendants Manzano, Johonson, and 

Hendrix.

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

Defendants Manzano, Johonson, and Hendrix 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).

Dated: August 7, 2015

14-0378-081o Order 15 08 06 on Motion to Extend Time to Complete Service.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 83 Filed 08/07/15 Page 6 of 6