Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00393/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00393-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugenia Derden,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0393-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Amended Default Judgment” (Dkt. 17), which

the Court will treat as a motion to Reconsider its Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

(Dkt. 12).

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed the Complaint in this action on February 21, 2007. (Dkt.

1, Compl.) On that same date, the Clerk of the Court issued a summons as to Defendant

Maricopa County. (See Dkt. Report.) Per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff had

120 days to effect service of process by serving Defendant with the summons and a copy of the

Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Although the Clerk of the Court issued the summons, it was

Plaintiff’s responsibility to serve Defendant with the summons and a copy of the Complaint by

June 21, 2007. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), 4(m). The Court reminded Plaintiff of this obligation

in its Standard Civil Track Initial Order. (Dkt. 3, Order dated Feb. 26, 2007.)

On July 17, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to effect

service within the time limits set forth in Rule 4. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff mailed copies

of the summons and Complaint to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, copies which were not

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 19 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

received until July 9, 2007. (Dkt. 4, Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss.) Defendant noted that the Federal

and Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure required service be made by delivering a copy of the

summons and Complaint to the chief executive officer, secretary, clerk, or recording officer

thereof. (Id. at 2 n.1, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2), Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i).)

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and a Motion to

Continue Tort Complaint. (Dkts. 5, 7.) The Court struck Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash as an

improper responsive motion, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue as vague. (Dkt. 8, Order

dated Aug. 14, 2007.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss by August 24, 2007, and warned her that failure to respond could result in dismissal

of the case. (Id.) A copy of the Order was mailed to Plaintiff and returned as undeliverable.

(Dkt. 9.) Plaintiff never responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, but filed a motion for

default judgment for failure to answer or otherwise respond, a motion which Defendant moved

to strike. (Dkts. 10, 11.)

On September 19, 2007, the Court deemed Plaintiff’s failure to respond as a consent to

granting the Motion to Dismiss, granted the Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the action

without prejudice. (Dkt. 12.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and

Defendant’s motion to strike as moot. (Id.) The Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor

of Defendant and closed the case. (Dkt. 13.) Copies of these documents were mailed to

Plaintiff and appear to have been delivered, as they were not returned as undeliverable, though

a later document was mailed and returned as undeliverable. (See Dkt. 16.)

On February 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for amended default judgment. (Dkt. 17)

The Court will treat as a motion to reconsider despite its untimeliness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b),

59(e) (motions to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 10 days of entry of judgment).

 In that motion, Plaintiff asserts that she responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by filing

a “Rule 12 Motion moving this Court to Quash Defendant’s first defence Motion explaining that

she had been under Duress . . . of Imprisonment.” (Dkt. 17 at 2.) Plaintiff also asserts that

Defendant and the Court violated various constitutional, statutory, and procedural rules. 

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 19 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Plaintiff does not address her failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by the

Court-ordered deadline of August 24, 2007, most likely because she did not receive a copy of

the Order striking her “Motion to Quash.” In this case, the Complaint and Civil Cover Sheet

list Plaintiff’s address as “405 E. Linda Lane, Gilbert AZ 85234.” (Dkt. 1.) As a result, the

Court mailed copies of its orders to that address. Other documents filed by Plaintiff add “UC”

to her address, apparently to indicate “Unit C,” though other documents do not contain this

addendum. (Compare Dkts. 5, 17 with Dkts. 7, 10.)

Plaintiff did not effect service of process within the 120-day time limit, nor did she

respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as ordered by the Court. Although Plaintiff’s failure

to respond may have resulted from her failure to receive a copy of the Court’s Order, it was

Plaintiff’s responsibility to insure that the Court had an accurate mailing address. See LRCiv

83.3(d). The Court therefore affirms its Order dismissing this case and denies Plaintiff’s motion

for amended default judgment. As dismissal was without prejudice, Plaintiff may pursue this

matter by filing a new complaint and paying a filing fee.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has contacted the Court via personal letter and telephone

calls. The proper way to communicate with the Court is by filing formal motions and notices,

which the Court responds to by issuing orders; the Court does not respond to personal

communications. Although the rules of procedure may be difficult to navigate for a pro se

litigant, our system of justice requires that they be followed. This matter having been

terminated, the Court will not entertain any further motions. Defendant shall not be required

to respond to any further motions as they shall be summarily denied. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for amended default judgment (Dkt.

17) is DENIED. This matter shall remain closed, and any further motions shall be summarily

denied.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00393-SMM Document 19 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 3