Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01696/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01696-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

Raymond Earl Rigsby,

Plaintiff

-vsState of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-11-1696-PHX-DGC (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

Re Dismissal of Unserved Defendants

Failure to Timely Serve - In the Order filed November 1, 2013 (Doc. 154), the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why Defendants Reeder 

and Schriro 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 April 17, 2013 

(Doc. 101) advised Plaintiff that the presumptive maximum service date was March 4, 

2013.

On May 2, 2013, the Court observed outstanding service against a number of 

defendants and issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 105), directing Plaintiff to show 

cause why the unserved defendants should not be dismissed. Plaintiff responded (Doc. 

106) and the Court directed counsel for Defendant Ryan to provide last known addresses 

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 157 Filed 12/05/13 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

(Doc. 107). Defendants complied (Docs. 108 and 109). Renewed service on Defendant 

Reeder was again attempted and returned unexecuted on June 19, 2013 (Doc. 111). Since 

then, Plaintiff has taken no action to serve Defendant Reeder.

Renewed service on Defendant Schriro was returned unexecuted on October 29, 

2013 (Doc. 153), with the indication that the New York U.S. Marshals Office reported 

that they couldn’t provide service at the New York Department of Corrections address 

provided, because “needs Badge number for the facility to accept service.” (Doc. 153.) 

Service on Defendant Schriro had been outstanding since July 10, 2013. Plaintiff had 

taken no action to follow up on or otherwise pursue such service.

In the Order filed November 1, 2013 (Doc. 154), the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

show cause why Defendants Reeder and Schriro should not be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to effect service, and further directed that with regard to Defendant 

Schriro that any response should reflect diligence on the part of Plaintiff to pursue 

service, and a plan and viable prospects on completing service in the next 60 days.

Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to respond expired on November 15, 

2013.

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 

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 

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 157 Filed 12/05/13 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

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

Here, Plaintiff has failed to proffer any good cause or excusable neglect.

The Court finds no basis to find either.

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 – These defendants, if eventually 

served, would be brought into litigation in which all essentially deadlines either are 

expired or soon will be. For example, under the current scheduling order, discovery 

requests deadlines expired November 15, 2013, and the dispositive motions deadline is 

January 10, 2014. (Order 11/1/13, Doc. 154.) 

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

Defendant Reeder was returned unexecuted, and one month since service on Defendant 

Schriro 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 27 months old, the original time for service expired almost eight months 

ago, and the case is nearing completion, with the extended discovery and motions 

deadlines about to expire. 

Reason for Delay – Plaintiff proffers no reason for his delay. Prejudice to the 

opposing parties would result from the 11th hour addition of a new defendant, on a 

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 157 Filed 12/05/13 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

separate claim not being litigated by the other parties. Prejudice to the new defendant 

would mirror the prejudice to the existing defendants, whose cases would be ready to 

proceed to dispositive motion and/or trial by the time a new defendant were added and 

served.

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 Reeder and Schriro.

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

Defendants Reeder and Schriro 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: December 4, 2013

11-1696o Order 13 12 04 re RR on OSC FTSrv.docx James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 157 Filed 12/05/13 Page 4 of 4