Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02415/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02415-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Rolly White, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02415-PHX-RCB

ORDER 

 

 The Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge 

James F. Metcalf recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice as to 

“Defendants Patten [sic],1

 Unknown Osborn, and Unknown Parties” pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) for failure to effect timely service. R & R (Doc. 78) at 3:1. Pending 

before the court are the plaintiffs’ timely objections (Doc. 80) to the R & R. 

 The plaintiff objects to the R & R, but only to the extent that it recommends 

dismissal of this action as to the Patton defendants. Objection (Doc. 80) at 4:1-2. The 

plaintiff expressly acquiesces in dismissal as to defendant Osborn and the unknown Doe 

defendants 1-40. Id. at 1, n. 1. Dismissal is not proper as to the Patton defendants, the 

plaintiff argues, because they have answered the complaint and participated in discovery. 

Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff further argues that the Patton defendants have 

 

1

 The R & R uses two different spellings -- “Patten” and “Patton[.]” See, e.g., R & R (Doc. 

78) at 1:12; and 1:18. Regardless, clearly the R & R is referring to the same defendants. To be accurate 

and consistent, this order will employ the spelling of the defendants themselves, i.e., Patton. See, e.g., 

Resp. (Doc. 90) at 1:17-18. 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 94 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 3
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 

waived any defense regarding defects in the service of process. 

 The defendants State of Arizona, Charles S. Ryan and Jane Doe Ryan, Robert C. 

Patton and Jane Doe Patton, Tara Diaz and John Doe Diaz, Madeline Perkins and John 

Doe Perkins, Sergeant Putnam and Jane Doe Putnam, Officer Doreen Neu and Charles 

Neu, Officer Jennifer Repp and John Doe Repp, Officer Jose Buendia and Jane Doe 

Buendia, (collectively “the State defendants”) filed a timely response to plaintiff’s 

objections (Doc. 90). While the State defendants “agree that the Patton Defendants 

should not be dismissed from this case,” their reasoning differs from the plaintiff. Resp. 

(Doc. 90) at 1:24-25. Dismissal is not appropriate, the State defendants argue, because 

defendant Robert Patton “was actually served[]” with the complaint prior to the removal 

of this action to federal court. Id. at 2:6. 

 It would have been preferable for the Patton defendants to have provided proof of 

such service.2

 Nonetheless, the court has no reason to doubt that in keeping with his 

obligation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, there is evidentiary support for defense counsel’s 

assertion that the Patton defendants were served with the complaint in this case prior to 

removal. This is all the more so considering that the Patton defendants, along with the 

other State defendants, have filed an answer to the complaint. See Answer (Doc. 7). 

Surely they would not have done so absent service of process. Service upon the Patton 

defendants renders moot the plaintiff’s argument that the complaint should not be 

dismissed as against that those defendants because they have made a general appearance 

and participated in discovery. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 78) is ADOPTED to the extent it 

recommends dismissal without prejudice as to defendant Osborn and the unknown Doe 

 

2

 The docket from the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, attached 

to the Notice of Removal, indicates the filing of an affidavit of service as to Robert C. Patton on October 

25, 2012. See Notice of Removal, exh. B thereto (Doc. 1-1) at 3. Without more, however, it cannot be 

ascertained with certainty whether that affidavit pertains to service of the summons and complaint upon 

defendant Patton. 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 94 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 3
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 

defendants; but 

 (2) the court will not adopt that portion of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

78) recommending dismissal without prejudice as to Robert C. and Jane Doe Patton for 

failure to effect service upon those two defendants. The plaintiff shall be allowed to 

proceed with his claims against the Patton defendants and others. 

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 94 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 3