Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02368/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02368-0/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

Earl Felton Crago, Jr.,

Plaintiff

-vsCharles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-11-2368-PHX-SMM (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

Failure to Timely Serve - Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 62) was 

filed on October 1, 2012. The Court’s service Order (Doc. 61) was entered on October 4, 

2012. Plaintiff was given 60 days to complete service on Defendants Clark and 

Jorgenson. (Id. at 1, 3.) 

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.” Thus, even ignoring the Court’s specific order, service was due no 

later than January 29, 2013. 

A review of the Court’s file reflects that service on Defendant Jorgenson was 

returned unexecuted on November 13, 2012 (Doc. 67), and service on Defendant Clark 

was returned unexecuted on November 29, 2012 (Doc. 78). In its Order filed December 

20, 2012 (Doc. 81), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause 

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 82 Filed 02/06/13 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

why Defendants Clark and Jorgenson should not be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to effect service. Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to do so has expired.

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 

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 - Defendants, if eventually served, 

would be brought into litigation in which all deadlines either are expired or soon will be. 

For example, under the current scheduling order, the discovery and discovery motion 

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 82 Filed 02/06/13 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

deadlines have already expired (Order 6/18/12, Doc. 35), and the dispositive motion by 

remaining Defendant Portillo (Doc. 68) is fully briefed. 

Length of Delay and Impact - Over two months have expired since service on 

Defendants Clark and Jorgenson was returned unexecuted. To extend the time for 

service, and to introduce new defendants would effectively mean resetting the schedule 

in this case. This case is already over 13 months old, the ordered time for service 

expired two months ago, and the case is nearing completion. 

Reason for Delay - Plaintiff's fitful attempts at naming and pursuing service on 

this defendant do not demonstrate diligence, nor provide sufficient reason to explain the 

extent of the delay. Rather, much of the delay is attributable to simple neglect. Prejudice 

to the opposing parties would result from the 11th hour addition of a new defendant. 

Prejudice to the new defendant would mirror the prejudice to the existing defendants, 

whose cases would be ready to proceed to dispositive motion and/or trial by the time a 

new defendant were added and served.

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 Defendants Clark and Jorgenson.

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

Defendants Clark and Jorgenson 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 

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 82 Filed 02/06/13 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

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).

Dated: February 5, 2013

11-2368o Order 13 02 04 re RR re Dismiss Clark and Jorgenson.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 82 Filed 02/06/13 Page 4 of 4