Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02367/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02367-3/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 

Kurt Adam Oldenburg, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Laura Ridge, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-02367-PHX-PGR (DMF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT: 

This matter is before the Court regarding service of Defendant Pierce, Deputy 

Warden. At the time of filing this pro per civil rights action, Plaintiff was an inmate at an 

Arizona State Prison Complex. In an Order entered December 16, 2015, the Court 

ordered Defendants Lead Psych Associate Laura Ridge, Deputy Warden Pierce, Psych 

Assistant Elizabeth Rios and Psychiatrist Winsky to answer various counts of Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20.) Counsel has entered an appearance for 

Defendants Rios and Winsky (Doc. 32), who have answered and a Scheduling Order has 

been issued (Doc. 38). Defendant Ridge has been served (Doc. 46) and has not yet 

answered. Defendant Pierce has not yet been served and this Report and 

Recommendation regards such; undersigned recommends that Defendant Pierce be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve and for failure to respond to this Court’s 

Case 2:14-cv-02367-PGR-DMF Document 48 Filed 12/13/16 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 

Order to Show cause regarding failure to serve (Doc. 44).1 

On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service on Defendant 

Pierce (Doc. 31). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and directed defense counsel who 

had entered an appearance to provide to the Court under seal the last known address of 

non-Corizon defendant named Pierce (Doc. 33). Counsel for Defendants Rios and 

Winsky did not have a home address for Defendant Pierce. The sealed portion of the 

notice at Doc. 43 (sealed to protect the home addresses) relating to Defendant Pierce 

states as follows: “Kelly Pierce: Corizon has no record of this party as either an 

employee or an independent contractor for Corizon. Corizon records disclose a Kelly 

Pierce, Facility Compliance Inspections/Auditior for the Arizona Department of 

Corrections.” (Doc. 43 at p. 3). 

A month later, on June 20, 2016, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to serve 

Defendant Pierce (Doc. 39, p. 1). Plaintiff explained that he would obtain a licensed 

private investigator to locate Ridge once released from custody, which was imminent 

(Id., p. 2). The Court granted this motion, allowing Plaintiff until September 23, 2016, 

to serve Defendant Pierce (Doc. 40). Subsequently, on July 11, 2016, Plaintiff provided 

his address outside of prison (Doc. 41). September 23, 2016, passed without service of 

Defendant Pierce. Nor did Plaintiff file any update regarding his efforts to serve 

Defendant Pierce on or before September 23, 2016. 

On November 2, 2016, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing that 

“Plaintiff on or before Tuesday, November 15, 2016, show cause in a written filing ... 

why Defendant Pierce should not be dismissed” (Doc. 44 at p. 3). Plaintiff did not 

respond to the Court’s Order to show cause. Further, as of today’s date, there is no 

indication that Plaintiff has served Defendant Pierce. Plaintiff has had since July 11, 

 

1

 In the discussion below, several of the filings and orders also pertained to Defendant Ridge. Because Defendant Ridge has now been served, the Court will not 

discuss the application of the filings and orders as to Defendant Ridge. The Court notes that the delayed service of Defendant Ridge in this matter is due at least in part to a clerk’s office error. To the extent that such error may have arguably warranted more time for Plaintiff’s service of Defendant Pierce, Plaintiff has been afforded such time and 

additional time. See Doc. 44. 

Case 2:14-cv-02367-PGR-DMF Document 48 Filed 12/13/16 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 

2016, to effect service. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Pierce be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve 

Defendant Pierce within the time specified by the Court in the Order at Doc. 40 and for 

failure to show cause within the time frame specified by the Court in the Order at Doc. 

44. 

 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. 

 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 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 

 Dated this 13th day of December, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02367-PGR-DMF Document 48 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 3