Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01048/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01048-4/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anibal Ortiz,

Plaintiff

-vsDonna Burnias, et al.,

Defendants

CV-09-1048-PHX-MHM (JRI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Background - On December 22, 2009, the Court completed screening of Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), dismissing all defendants except Defendants Cain

and Burnias. (Order 12/22/09 Doc. 11.) Defendant Burnias has since answered. (Doc. 15.)

Service on Defendant Cain was returned unexecuted on February 12, 2010 (Doc. 14).

Corrections Corporation of America was directed to provide an address for Defendant Cain

(Order 4/14/10, Doc. 18), which they did (Doc. 18). Service was again attempted and

returned unexecuted on May 13, 2010 (Doc. 26). In the meantime, on April 30, 2010,

Defendants filed a more recent last known address for Defendant Cain (Doc. 24), and service

was again ordered (Order 6/10/10, Doc. 31) and attempted at this address and on June 28,

2010, again returned unexecuted (Doc. 37). 

On July 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 40) seeking to serve Defendant Cain

by publication. That motion was denied without prejudice (Order 8/12/10, Doc. 46), on the

basis that Plaintiff had failed to provide the required affidavit of due diligence to effect

personal service, and because "the record reflects little effort by Plaintiff beyond asking for

the Court to order Cain's employer to provide a last known address." (Doc. 46 at 1.) 

On September 2, 2010, Plaintiff a second motion to serve, providing an Affidavit in

support (Doc. 54), and again seeking service on Cain by publication, and to extend the time

for service. Both requests were denied. (Order 10/22/10, Doc. 62.) 

Case 2:09-cv-01048-JWS Document 69 Filed 12/02/10 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 -

Applicable Law - 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.” 

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). 

Where a magistrate judge enters an order on a non-dispositive matter, a party has 14

days to object to the order, and a “party may not assign as error a defect in the order not

timely objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Application of Law to Facts - Under the foregoing rules, service in this matter should

have been completed by March 3, 2010. In addition, the Court’s Scheduling Order, filed

April 14, 2010 (Doc. 18) advised Plaintiff that the presumptive maximum service date was

March 3, 2010. 

In denying Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for service (Doc. 51), the undersigned

found a lack of “good cause as required by Rule 4(b) to further extend the time for service.”

(Order 10/22/10, Doc. 62 at 3.) That order was served on Plaintiff by mailing on October 22,

2010. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to that Order, and the time to do so has now run.

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Cain be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect timely service.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Case 2:09-cv-01048-JWS Document 69 Filed 12/02/10 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 -

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 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: December 1, 2010 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\09-1048-r RR 10 11 29 re Dismiss Cain FTSrv.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-01048-JWS Document 69 Filed 12/02/10 Page 3 of 3