Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406-3/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

Shalek E. Modee,

Plaintiff

-vsCorizon Health, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-19-0406-PHX-DLR (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

re Dismissal of Defendant Tana

Plaintiff has failed to timely serve Defendant Tana (or Tanna). This matter is before 

the undersigned magistrate judge on referral for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Because the appropriate resolution of this matter is potentially dispositive of 

some of Plaintiff’s claims, the undersigned proceeds by way of a Report & 

Recommendation to the referring district judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

A. Background 

Plaintiff commenced this action on January 28, 2019, by filing his Complaint (Doc. 

1). On May 14, 2019, the Court screened the Complaint, dismissed various claims and 

defendants, and ordered service on and answers from Defendants Corizon, Ryan, 

Buchholz, Johnson, Rainey, Natasha, Gertz, Tana, Smith, Hawley, Gay, Flake, Weigel, 

Demery, Gowey, Chamberlain, Romero, Scott, Nieblas, Loyd, and Vinson.

Service has since been completed on and/or answers filed by Defendants Corizon, 

Ryan (substituted with Shinn), Buchholz, Rainey, Gertz, Smith, Gay, Flake, Weigel, 

Demery, Chamberlain, Romero, Scott, Neiblas and Hawley. Defendants Natasha, Gowey, 

Vinson, Johnson and Loyd have been dismissed for failure to make timely service. (Order 

12/11/19, Doc. 192.) That leaves Defendant Tana.

First attempts at service were returned unexecuted on Defendant Tana on July 22, 

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 200 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 5
- 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

2019 (Doc. 57). On Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 48), either a current work address, or if not 

longer employed a last known address, was ordered from Corizon Inc. for Tana. (Order 

8/13/19, Doc. 88) A last known home address was provided under seal on August 27, 

2019 (Docs. 100, 105). 

Second attempts at service were again attempted on Tana at the provided home 

address. However, service was returned unexecuted on November 5, 2019 (Doc. 165). 

On November 25, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff 14 days to respond to an order to 

show cause why Tana should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m) for 

failure to timely serve. (Order 11/25/19, Doc. 187.) 

Plaintiff has responded (Doc. 188) seeking to extend the time for service, and orders 

for defense counsel to effect service on Defendant at her place of employment. 

Defendants have not replied.

B. Applicable Standard 

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 these rules, Plaintiff had through July 15, 2019 to complete 

service.

Because Rule 4(m) does not establish a cutoff for service, but rather a time after 

which consideration of dismissal becomes appropriate, the normal standards of “good 

cause” under Rule 6(b) do not apply. 

Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the 

district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good 

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 200 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, 

the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of 

excusable neglect. Exercise of discretion to extend time to complete 

service is appropriate when, for example, a statute-of-limitations bar 

would operate to prevent re-filing of the action.

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir.2009) (internal citations omitted). 

C. Application of Law

1. No Good Cause 

Under the first avenue for relief from delays in service, the court must grant the 

extension on a showing of “good cause.” Rule 4 does not define “good cause.” The Ninth 

Circuit has recognized that “[a]t a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.” 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). Implicit is the determination that 

some causes don’t involve neglect and thus need not be “excused,” e.g. diligent but 

unsuccessful efforts to timely serve.

The undersigned does not find good cause for the failure to effect timely service. 

Although Plaintiff has taken past steps to effect service, he fails to show any recent or 

current efforts, or that future steps are planned or possible which are likely to allow service 

on these defendants to be completed.

Plaintiff proposes Defendant Tana be served at her job. But Plaintiff proffers 

nothing to show that a work address for Defendant Tana is available. Corizon has 

represented to the Court that Tana is no longer employed by Corizon. Although it is 

possible that Tana may have been re-employed at ADOC, either by the prison or the new 

health care contractor that replaced Corizon, Plaintiff makes not assertions showing that 

to be the case. 

2. No Excusable Neglect 

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). The applicable 

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 200 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

standard is “a showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198. 

“A determination of excusable neglect “is at bottom an equitable one, taking 

account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission...[including] the 

danger of prejudice...length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, 

the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the 

movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. 

Brunswick Associates Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). 

In Boudette, the court stated that a plaintiff may be required to show the following 

factors in order to bring the excuse to the level of good cause: “(a) the party to be served 

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, 923 

F.2d at 756 (citing Hart v. United States, 817 F.2d 78, 80–81 (9th Cir.1987)).

Plaintiff fails to offer anything to show excusable neglect for his failure to timely 

serve Tana. He offers no excuse for his inaction in pursuing service, only unsupported 

assertions that service should be completed. 

Here there is a danger of prejudice to a defendant who would be brought in to 

litigation with a nearly fully exhausted pretrial schedule. The other parties would be 

prejudiced by delays in completing this proceeding. There is a concomitant disruption to 

these judicial proceedings. Plaintiff has had almost nine months to complete service on 

Tana, and has had discovery available to locate Tana since at least July 23, 2019 when the 

Court’s Scheduling Order issued (Doc. 61). 

The only thing Plaintiff offers is the potential for expiration of the statute of 

limitations on his claims against Tana. While a relevant consideration, it does not excuse 

Plaintiff’s neglect. 

The undersigned finds no excusable neglect.

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

be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 200 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 5
- 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

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).

In addition, the parties are cautioned Local Civil Rule 7.2(e)(3) provides that 

“[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and Recommendation 

issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages.” 

Dated: January 9, 2020

19-0406-188r RR 20 01 08 re Dismiss Tana.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 200 Filed 01/09/20 Page 5 of 5