Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08048/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Donald Alphonso Allen, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 13-08048 PHX GMS MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT

Commissioner of Arizona State ) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

Prison; Pamela Rider; President ) SERVE

of Management & Training )

Corporation, ASPC Kingman; ) 

CO Denoyer; Unknown Parties, ) 

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW:

Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 11, 2013,

alleging, inter alia, a cause of action pursuant to section

1983, regarding an incident which occurred on April 26, 2012, at

the Arizona Department of Corrections facility in Kingman,

Arizona. On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff was, and he is now,

incarcerated in New Jersey. Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint (Doc. 7) on May 20, 2013. 

On July 16, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion

for leave to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis and

ordered Defendant Denoyer to answer the claim stated in

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint at Doc. 7. 

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 7
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

-2-

The screening order states:

In his one-count First Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: John

Doe Commissioner of the Arizona State Prison

(John Doe Commissioner), Warden [] Rider,

John Doe President of M.T.C. (John Doe

President), Correctional Officer Denoyer, and

“Captains and Sergeants, and L[ieu]tenants of

the F[ir]st Shift Staff 1-10 I/J/S/A ABC

Entities of Arizona State Prison Kingman

Complex.”

 Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to

excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment, when Defendant Denoyer[,] while

Plaintiff was being searched, released his

canister of pepper spray into Plaintiff’s

face and immediately placed his restraints on

Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that his vision

became impaired from the incident and he had

to seek additional eye care....

 Plaintiff claims that the post-incident

investigation determined Defendant Denoyer

had used excessive force, Plaintiff received

a formal apology, and Defendant Denoyer was

relieved of his duties for the remainder of

his tour of duty that day. In addition, in

response to Plaintiff’s grievance regarding

the incident, Defendant Rider stated that

Defendant Denoyer’s employment was terminated

as a result of the incident.

Doc. 9.

The Court ordered all other defendants and claims

stated in the first amended complaint (Doc. 7) be dismissed.

The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to obtain service of

process on Defendant Denoyer within sixty days of the date that

order was entered, i.e., by September 13, 2013, would result in

the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 4(m),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), Local

Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s

motion for the appointment of counsel.

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 7
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

-3-

Plaintiff returned a service packet for Defendant

Denoyer to the Court. 

A second amended complaint (Doc. 11) was docketed

without leave of the Court on August 8, 2013, naming as

defendants Unknown Denoyer, Pamela Rider, Unknown Parties,

Unknown Party (Commissioner of Arizona State Prison), Unknown

Party (President of Management & Training Corporation), and ASPC

Kingman Complex. Plaintiff was not entitled to docket another

amended complaint without leave of the Court.

The address provided by Plaintiff for service on

Defendant Denoyer was at the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Kingman, Arizona. Service on Defendant Denoyer was returned as

unexecuted on August 29, 2013. See Doc. 13. The return of

service indicates that service documents were mailed to the

Kingman prison and returned to the Marshal with a notation that

Defendant Denoyer was no longer employed at the prison. Id.

On November 15, 2013, the Court issued an order

requiring Plaintiff to show cause for the failure to serve

Defendant Denoyer. See Doc. 16. In response, Plaintiff filed

a motion (Doc. 18) seeking an extension of the time allowed to

effect service, asserting that Plaintiff had no other address

for Defendant Denoyer, but noting that he had filed a motion to

compel the Arizona Department of Corrections, which is not a

party to this matter, to disclose Defendant’s last known address

and to compel the Arizona Department of Corrections to “admit”

that Defendant’s employment was terminated as a result of the

incident alleged by Defendant. In an order issued January 14,

2014, the Court directed the United States Marshal to make

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 7
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

1 The Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of

that order to the United States Marshal. The Marshal was required to,

within thirty days, make further inquiry of the Arizona Department of

Corrections as to obtaining a last known home address for Defendant

Denoyer. The Marshal was further ordered to within fifteen days of

receiving this information, attempt service on Defendant Denoyer at

the address provided by the Arizona Department of Corrections.

-4-

greater inquiry of the CDCR and re-attempt service on Defendant

Denoyer, and allowed Plaintiff until March 3, 2014, to serve

Defendant Denoyer.1

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 22)

seeking leave to amend his second amended complaint at Doc. 11,

which had been docketed without leave of Court. Plaintiff’s

proposed third amended complaint (Doc. 23) sought to identify

John Doe defendants who have been dismissed from this matter. 

In an order issued March 10, 2013, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 22) for leave to amend his complaint to

identify John Doe defendants who were dismissed from the matter

based on the failure to state a claim for relief against these

defendants.

Service was again returned as unexecuted with regard to

Defendant Denoyer on March 24, 2014. See Doc. 26. The return

of service documents indicate that service was attempted on

Defendant Denoyer at his last known residential address. Id.

Defendant Denoyer is the only defendant in this matter.

Plaintiff has failed to effect service of process on Defendant

Denoyer. 

Dismissal of a civil action for failure to serve is a

matter within the Court’s discretion. See, e.g., Puett v.

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990). In cases involving

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 4 of 7
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

-5-

plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States

Marshal, upon order of the Court, is authorized to serve the

summons and the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c); Boudette v.

Barnett, 923 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991). “[A]n incarcerated

pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to

rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and

complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action

dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal

or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties....” Puett,

912 F.2d at 275. So long as the prisoner has furnished the

information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshal’s

failure to effect service “is automatically good cause within

the meaning of Rule 4(j).” Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d

598, 603 (7th Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted).

However, it remains Plaintiff’s responsibility to

provide the United States Marshal with accurate and sufficient

information to effect service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995). The Court is

not required to act as an investigative body in ascertaining a

correct address for Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2);

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422; Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th

Cir. 2006) (holding the court is responsible for assisting

indigent plaintiffs with service of process). The District

Court judges of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona have concluded that “neither the [USMS] nor

the Court may engage in investigatory efforts on behalf of the

parties to a lawsuit as this would improperly place the Court in

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 5 of 7
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

-6-

the role of an advocate.” E.g. DeRoche v. Funkhouser, 2008 WL

42277659, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2008), citing Hall v.

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that the

Court should not assume the role of advocate for a pro se

litigant). See also Ramirez v. Denver Health Medical Center,

2006 WL 2527965, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 30, 2006).

The United States Supreme Court has made

clear that federal “judges have no obligation

to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se

litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231

(2004) As an impartial decision maker, it is

not a federal judge’s role or responsibility

to track down a defendant’s address so a

plaintiff may serve process. This degree of

involvement “would undermine [trial] judges’

role as impartial decisionmakers.” Id. In

this action, the Court has taken many steps

to help facilitate Plaintiff’s efforts in

attempting to serve Defendant [], including

providing blank subpoenas. If Plaintiff

cannot provide the United States Marshal

Service with an appropriate address to serve

Defendant Clark, the Court can do little more

at this juncture. 

Johnson v. Clark, 2013 WL 646022, at *5 (D. Ariz.).

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint and this

action be dismissed without prejudice for the failure to serve

the only defendant remaining in this matter.

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.

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 6 of 7
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

-7-

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), 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. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2014.

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 32 Filed 05/08/14 Page 7 of 7