Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00912/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00912-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1364 Auto Negligence

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leonel Martinez, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

United States of America, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0912-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

This personal injury action arises from a motor vehicle accident on May 25,

2005 allegedly caused by Griffin Tsabeysaye, who was at the time driving a

school bus belonging to the Casa Blanca School District and/or Casa Blanca

Community School; the Casa Blanca Community School is located on the Gila

River Indian Reservation.

The plaintiff’s initial action was filed in the Pinal County Superior Court on

February 3, 2006 and was removed by the United States to this Court on August

14, 2006 as CV-06-1974-PHX-ECV; the named defendants in the amended

complaint in that action were Tsabeysaye and the Brandi Oldham Casa Blanca

School. At the time of removal, the United States Attorney certified that

Tsabeysaye was acting in his capacity as an employee of the Casa Blanca

Community School at the time of the accident, and the United States filed a

Case 2:07-cv-00912-PGR Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

1

 The United States’ notice of removal, certification, and notice of

substitution also stated that defendant “Brandi Oldham” was deemed to be a

federal employee acting within the scope of her employment notwithstanding that

no individual named “Brandi Oldham” was named as a defendant in the amended

complaint - the other defendant named in the amended complaint was the “Brandi

Oldham Casa Blanca School.”

2

 Although the Second Amended Complaint was improperly filed under

- 2 -

notice substituting itself as the sole defendant in the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2679(d) on the ground that Tsabeysaye was deemed to be a federal employee

for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 450f because

the Casa Blanca Community School is an entity funded through the Tribally

Controlled Schools Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2501-2511.1

 The initial action was

subsequently dismissed without prejudice on November 1, 2006 due to the

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies mandated by the FTCA.

The plaintiff refiled the action in this Court on May 3, 2007. For some

inexplicable reason, the plaintiff did not name the United States as the defendant;

rather he again named Griffin Tsabeysaye and the Casa Blanca School District

and/or the Casa Blanca Community School (together with some fictitious

defendants). The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend on

May 14, 2007 because the complaint failed to allege any basis for federal subject

matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 15, 2007,

wherein he alleged that Tsabeysaye was deemed to be a federal employee for

purposes of the FTCA pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 450f. The plaintiff, without filing

either the motion required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) or a stipulation, filed a Second

Amended Complaint on August 17, 2007 in which he added the United States as

a named defendant.2

Case 2:07-cv-00912-PGR Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the Court will allow it to stand as the functioning complaint

given the United States’ failure to object to its filing on Rule 15(a) grounds.

3

 Although the plaintiff does not cite any procedural rule as the basis for

his motion, the Court presumes that the plaintiff’s motion is based on

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

- 3 -

Two motions are pending before the Court: the United States’ Motion to

Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service of Process, filed September 13, 2007,

wherein the United States argues that this action should be dismissed because

the plaintiff has not timely served the United States as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.

4(m) and has not properly served the United States as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.

4(i); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process, filed November

8, 2007, wherein the plaintiff seeks an additional 90 days in which to serve Griffin

Tsabeysaye and the Casa Blanca School District and/or Casa Blanca Community

School.3

 Having considered the parties’ memoranda in light of the record, the

Court finds that both motions should be denied.

First, notwithstanding the United States’ unexplained failure to certify in this

action that Tsabeysaye was acting in his official capacity as a deemed federal

employee at the time of the accident and its failure to file in this action a notice

substituting the United States as the sole defendant, the Court concludes that the

United States should be the sole defendant in this action because it is undisputed

that Tsabeysaye was acting in his official capacity as a deemed federal employee

at the time of the accident. The Court will therefore dismiss this action as to all of

the other defendants, which action moots the plaintiff’s motion to extend the

service time. 

Second, while the Court could properly dismiss this action because the

record does not contain any proof establishing that the plaintiff has either timely

Case 2:07-cv-00912-PGR Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

4

 While the United States further states in its reply that the plaintiff has

also not served the Department of Interior as required by Rule 4(i), nowhere does

the United States explain why the Department of Interior must be served in this

action in order to properly effect service on the United States.

- 4 -

or properly served the United States, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion,

chooses not to do so. Rather, the Court, deeming it to be in the interests of

justice to do so given that the United States has long been aware of the plaintiff’s

claims, will give the plaintiff one last chance to effect service on the United

States. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(1), the rule that clearly sets forth the procedure for

serving process on the United States, provides in relevant part that a plaintiff

must serve both the United States Attorney and the Attorney General of the

United States in order to effect service on the United States. In its motion to

dismiss, the United States, noting that the United States Attorney was served on

September 5, 2007, argues that such service occurred five days after the

expiration of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m)’s 120-day service period. The plaintiff argues in

his response that the United States, which he states was served on September 5,

2007, was timely served within 120 days after the filing of the Amended

Complaint.

The Court can only presume that the plaintiff is improperly equating service

on the United States Attorney as accomplishing service on the United States

since he nowhere states how the United States was served, he has said nothing

about serving the United States Attorney General, and the United States, in its

reply dated October 9, 2007, states that the plaintiff had not as of that date

served the Attorney General.4

 

Since Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) permits the Court in its discretion to direct that

Case 2:07-cv-00912-PGR Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

- 5 -

service of process be effected within a specified time in lieu of dismissal for

untimely service even if good cause is not shown, see e.g., Mann v. American

Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 and n.2 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court will give the

plaintiff until November 26, 2007 in which to effect service on the United States in

accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i), and until December 10, 2007 in which to file

proper proof of service. The plaintiff is warned that his failure to timely and

properly effect service in accordance with this Order will result in the dismissal of

this action. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants Griffen Tsabeysaye, Jane Doe

Tsabeysaye, Casa Blanca School District, Casa Blanca Community School, John

Does I-X, Jane Does I-X, ABC-XYZ Corporations, and Black and White

Partnerships are all dismissed from this action, and that this action shall proceed

solely against defendant United States of America.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss for

Insufficiency of Service of Process (doc. #16) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for

Service of Process (doc. #22) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have through November

26, 2007 in which to effect service of process on the United States of America in

accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have through December

10, 2007 in which to file proof of service in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(l).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file their Joint Case

Management Report no later than January 14, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference shall be held

Case 2:07-cv-00912-PGR Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

- 6 -

on Monday, January 28, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 601.

DATED this 13th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00912-PGR Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 Page 6 of 6