Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00499/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00499-0/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

Darrell Sheets,

Plaintiff

-vsCorizon Health Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-15-0499-PHX-GMS (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

Failure to Timely Serve - Service on Defendant Pratt was returned unexecuted

on August 31, 2015. (Doc. 13.) In its Order filed October 6, 2015 (Doc. 18), the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why Defendant Pratt 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 September 9, 2015 

(Doc. 15) advised Plaintiff that the presumptive maximum service date was August 11, 

2015.

Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to do so expired October 20, 2015.

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00499-GMS-JFM Document 20 Filed 10/26/15 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

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 

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

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 - Defendant, if eventually served, 

would be brought into litigation in which deadlines would soon be expiring. For 

example, under the current scheduling order, disclosure deadlines have passed and the 

discovery requests deadline expires January 6, 2016, and the dispositive motions 

deadline is March 7, 2016. (Order 9/9/15, Doc. 15.) 

Length of Delay and Impact – Almost two months have expired since service on 

Case 2:15-cv-00499-GMS-JFM Document 20 Filed 10/26/15 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

Defendant Pratt 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 nine months old, the time for service expired over two months 

ago, and discovery and motions deadlines would, by the time Defendant were served an 

appeared, be expired or about to expire. 

Reason for Delay – Plaintiff proffers no reason for his failure to pursue service on 

Defendant Pratt. This factor weighs most heavily in the determination.

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 Defendant Pratt.

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

Defendant Pratt 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00499-GMS-JFM Document 20 Filed 10/26/15 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

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: October 26, 2015

15-0499o Order 15 10 26 re RR Dismiss Pratt FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00499-GMS-JFM Document 20 Filed 10/26/15 Page 4 of 4