Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00956/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00956-0/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

WO SH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Narcisco Kiko Reyes, IV,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Itoro Elijah, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-00956-PHX-MTL (MTM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Narcisco Kiko Reyes, IV, who is currently confined in Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 6.) 

Before the Court is Defendant Centurion’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to timely serve, 

which Plaintiff opposes. (Docs. 25, 33.)1 

I. Background

Upon screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated Eighth Amendment medical care 

claims against former Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Charles Ryan 

in his official capacity, ADC’s contracted healthcare provider Corizon, and medical 

provider J. Whitman. (Doc. 16 at 6.) Because Defendant Ryan is no longer the ADC 

Director, the Court substituted Interim ADC Director Joseph Profiri in his official capacity 

for Defendant Ryan. (Id. at 7.) Likewise, because Centurion of Arizona took over as 

1 Plaintiff was advised of his right and obligation to respond to the Motion to 

Dismiss as well as the requirements of a response. (Doc. 26.)

Case 2:19-cv-00956-MTL-MTM Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 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

ADC’s contracted healthcare provider, the Court directed Corizon to respond to Plaintiff’s 

claim for money damages, added Centurion as a Defendant, and ordered Centurion to 

answer Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. (Id. at 6–7.) The Court dismissed the 

remaining claims and Defendants. (Id. at 8.) Thereafter, David Shinn became ADC 

Director and answered Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 19.)2

II. Centurion’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Defendant’s Argument

Centurion moves the Court to dismiss it from the action because it was not timely 

served. (Doc. 25 at 1.) Centurion points out that pursuant to the Court’s screening Order, 

Plaintiff was required to obtain a waiver of service or complete service upon it within 90 

days of filing the Complaint or within 60 days of the screening Order, whichever is later. 

(Id. at 2.) On January 8, 2020—92 days after the Court issued its screened Order—the 

U.S. Marshals delivered the service documents to Centurion’s Arizona facility located at 

1850 W. Rio Salado Parkway in Tempe, Arizona. (Doc. 24.) Thus, Centurion argues that 

Plaintiff’s “lawsuit was served outside of the 60[-]day window set in the Court’s screening 

Order,” and it should be dismissed from the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m).3

B. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if a summons and complaint are 

not served upon a defendant within 90 days after filing, the court shall, after notice to the 

plaintiff, either dismiss the action or, if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, direct 

that service be effected within a specified time. The Ninth Circuit has explained that Rule 

4(m) “requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good 

cause for the delay. A plaintiff may demonstrate good cause by showing that he made a 

2 The Court will therefore dismiss Defendant Profiri from the action.

3 Centurion also implies that service was not actually effected because the Tempe 

address where the service documents were delivered is not its address for accepting service. 

(See Doc. 25 at n.2.) Because the Court is extending the service deadline and ordering 

service to be made to Centurion’s correct address, this argument is irrelevant.

Case 2:19-cv-00956-MTL-MTM Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 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

reasonable and diligent effort to effect service. See Electrical Specialty Co. v. Road & 

Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1992). “Additionally, the rule permits the 

district court to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause.” Efaw v. Williams, 

473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Courts should give the Rule 4 provisions a liberal and flexible construction. See Borzeka 

v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 (9th Cir. 1984). When determining whether an extension 

for service is warranted, a district court should consider factors such as prejudice to the 

defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service. Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041; see 

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (factors 

to consider in the excusable-neglect determination include danger of prejudice, length of 

delay, reason for delay, and whether party acted in good faith).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), if a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, “[t]he 

officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” 

The U.S. Marshal therefore serves the summons and the complaint; however, the plaintiff 

is still responsible for providing the Marshal with information necessary to locate each 

defendant to be served. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), 

abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

C. Discussion

The record shows that Plaintiff submitted his service packets to the U.S. Marshals 

on October 31, 2019. (See docket entries for October 31, 2019.) Unfortunately, Plaintiff 

provided the wrong service address in his documents for Defendant Centurion, and 

Plaintiff’s service documents were delivered at this address after the service deadline 

expired. (See Doc. 24.)

Because Defendant Centurion was not properly served at the correct service address, 

service upon Defendant Centurion will be quashed. However, Centurion makes no 

argument that it would be prejudiced if time for service were extended, this action is still 

in its early stages, and there is no evidence of bad faith from Plaintiff. Thus, the Court 

finds good cause for the failure to serve. The Court will permit Plaintiff to cure his failure 

Case 2:19-cv-00956-MTL-MTM Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 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

to properly serve Centurion, as the Ninth Circuit has suggested that courts “be generally

more solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants, particularly when technical jurisdictional 

requirements are involved.” Borzeka, 739 F.2d at 448. Accordingly, the Court will extend 

the service deadline by 60 days to allow Centurion to be properly served according to the 

requirements of Rule 4(e). 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant

Centurion’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25). 

(2) Service on Defendant Centurion (Doc. 24) is quashed.

(3) Defendant Centurion’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) is denied.

(4) The Clerk of Court shall complete a service packet for Defendant Centurion 

with Centurion’s address at:

Centurion of Arizona, LLC

c/o Statutory Agent 

CT Corporation System

3800 N. Central Ave Ste 460

Phoenix, AZ 85012

and forward it to the United States Marshal Service.

(5) Service shall be made on Defendant Centurion at the address above within 

60 days of the date of this Order by the United States Marshal Service pursuant to Rule 

4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(6) Defendant Profiri is dismissed from the action.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-00956-MTL-MTM Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 4