Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-01817/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-01817-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Darwin Dorsey,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Director of ADOC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-01817-PHX-ROS (ESW)

REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

This is a civil rights action filed by Arizona state prisoner David Darwin Dorsey

(“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 17, 2023, the Court allowed the 

Complaint to proceed against Defendant Gordon. (Doc. 17). On November 15, 2023, the 

Court issued an Order (Doc. 26) requiring Plaintiff to show cause no later than November 

29, 2023 why this action should not be dismissed as to Defendant Gordon for failure to 

timely serve and prosecute pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Plaintiff did not timely respond to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 26). 

However, on December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to Serve 

Proper Defendant with Notice of Claim and Request for New Service Packet” (Doc. 31). 

On January 17, 2024, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation, 

recommending dismissal of the action. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff filed an Objection, explaining 

Case 2:22-cv-01817-ROS Document 42 Filed 12/16/24 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

that his failure to serve Defendant Gordon was attributable to the prison moving Defendant 

Gordon’s work location. (Doc. 33). The Court sustained Plaintiff’s Objection and rejected 

the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 34.) In an abundance of caution, the Court granted 

Plaintiff “one final extension of time to serve Defendant Gordon.” (Id. at 2.) The Court 

ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare a subpoena on Plaintiff’s behalf directing the Arizona 

Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (“ADCRR”) Director to provide 

Defendant Gordon’s current work location, and extended the time for service an additional 

90 days. (Id.) 

On August 16, 2024, after issues with service of the subpoena, the Court extended 

the service deadline to November 12, 2024. (Doc. 36.) ADCRR filed its Response under 

seal and provided Defendant Gordon’s last known address. (Doc. 37.) The U.S. Marshals 

Service attempted service at the provided address but was unable to locate Defendant 

Gordon. (Doc. 38.) On November 20, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good 

cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve and prosecute. (Doc. 39.) 

Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 40) on November 26, 2024 and submitted a second filing 

(Doc. 41) on November 27, 2024 that is docketed as a Motion for Extension of Time to 

Serve. 

I. DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 

90 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.” However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for 

the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. 

As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, “Rule 4(m) requires a twostep analysis in deciding whether or not to extend the prescribed time period for the service 

of a complaint.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(m) and Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, GMBH, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3d Cir. 1995)). 

“First, upon a showing of good cause for the defective service, the court must extend the 

Case 2:22-cv-01817-ROS Document 42 Filed 12/16/24 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

time period. Second, if there is no good cause, the court has the discretion to dismiss 

without prejudice or to extend the time period.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has found it 

“unnecessary, however, to articulate a specific test that a court must apply in exercising its 

discretion under Rule 4(m),” noting “only that, under the terms of the rule, the court's 

discretion is broad.” Id. at 513. Yet “no court has ruled that the discretion is limitless. In 

making extension decisions under Rule 4(m) a district court may consider factors ‘like a 

statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual 

service.’” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added).

In his November 27, 2024 filing (Doc. 41), Plaintiff states that he “believe[s] it is 

the Court’s [responsibility] to serve Defendant Gordon, who is no longer with Arizona 

Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry.” Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, 

it is not the Court’s role to assist in obtaining Defendant Gordon’s address. See Bias v. 

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as 

a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants”). Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 41) contains nothing 

to indicate that Defendant Gordon may be served if the Court extended the service deadline. 

The Court has given Plaintiff a sufficient opportunity to serve Defendant Gordon and 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to grant a further extension of the service deadline. The 

undersigned recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 41) and dismiss this 

action without prejudice for failure to timely serve the single defendant, Defendant Gordon, 

pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of 

Time to Serve (Doc. 41). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this action without 

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the single defendant, Defendant Gordon. 

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 

Case 2:22-cv-01817-ROS Document 42 Filed 12/16/24 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

4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall 

have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which 

to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the

objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143,1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated this 16th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:22-cv-01817-ROS Document 42 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 4