Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00942/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00942-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jason Lee Stein, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Mesa Police Department Officer T. 

Zachary, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00942-PHX-SPL (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on its own review. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff, 

proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On 

August 6, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, screened the 

Complaint, and ordered the United States Marshal Serve (USMS) to serve Defendant 

Colburn.1

 (Doc. 10.) The Court ordered that failure to serve Defendant Colburn within 

120 days of filing the Complaint or within sixty days of the August 6, 2015 order, 

whichever is later, could result in dismissal of this action.2

 (Id. at 12.) 

 Plaintiff returned a service packet for service on Defendant Colburn. However 

service at that address was returned unexecuted because Defendant Colburn “is no longer 

 

1

 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the several other defendants 

named in the Complaint. (Doc. 10 at 12.) 

2

 The 120-day deadline was derived from Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. That rule was amended effective December 1, 2015 to shorten the service 

deadline to ninety days after the complaint is filed. However, because Plaintiff filed his 

Complaint in May 2015, the Court applies Rule 4 as it existed before the December 1, 2015 amendment. 

Case 2:15-cv-00942-SPL Document 25 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

employed [with] Mesa PD [police department].” (Doc. 16 at 1.) Therefore, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before December 7, 2015 why this cause of action 

should not be dismissed for failure serve Defendant Colburn. (Doc. 17); see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(m). Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause by the deadline. Therefore, 

on December 11, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge recommended that this matter be 

dismissed for failure to serve. (Doc. 20.) On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an 

untimely response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff explained that he had 

been released from prison on October 29, 2015 and was trying to find legal assistance. 

(Id.) In an abundance of caution, on January 6, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff a sixtyday extension of time to serve Defendant Colburn. (Doc. 22.) That deadline passed and 

Plaintiff did not serve Defendant Colburn. 

 Accordingly, on March 24, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or 

before April 7, 2016 why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 24.) 

Plaintiff has neither responded to the March 24, 2016 Order nor served Defendant 

Colburn. Therefore, the Court recommends that this matter be dismissed for failure to 

serve and for failure to comply with Court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to serve and for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(m) and 41(b). 

 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the 

Case 2:15-cv-00942-SPL Document 25 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely 

objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a 

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72. 

 Dated this 18th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00942-SPL Document 25 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 3