Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00473/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00473-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor O. Dema, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.; Robert Feinberg;

and Michael J. Yates, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-473-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants on March 2, 2007. Dkt. #1.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve as required by

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

an extension of time to complete service and for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. #7.

A. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Extension of Time.

Rule 4(m) provides that “the court shall extend the time for service” upon a showing

of “good cause.” Plaintiff asserts that good cause exists because he was incarcerated for

thirty days in Maricopa County Jail and is undergoing medical treatment for a mental

disorder. Dkt. #7 at 2-3. Good cause generally does not exist, however, when a plaintiff

merely encounters difficulties in completing service, such as “failure to receive a waiver of

formal service, ignorance of the rule, the absence of prejudice to the defendant, office moves

Case 2:07-cv-00473-DGC Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

or personal problems, the belief that the time requirement was only technical, the filing of

an amended complaint, inadvertence of counsel, or the expenditure of efforts that fall short

of real diligence by the serving party.” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure:

Civil 3d § 1137 at 352 (2002). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s lack of service falls into this

category. Plaintiff has failed to explain why his temporary incarceration and medical

treatment precluded him from timely serving Defendants.

The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that district courts have broad discretion under

Rule 4(m) to extend time for service even without a showing of good cause. See United

States v. 2,164 Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004). This holding is consistent with

the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m), which “authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff

of the consequences of an application of [Rule 4(m)] even if there is no good cause shown.”

(1993 Amendments). Given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the apparent lack of prejudice to

Defendants resulting from the delay in service, the Court will exercise its discretion and give

Plaintiff until September 14, 2007 to complete service of process in this case. Plaintiff is

explicitly warned, however, that the Court will not be inclined to grant a further extension

absent truly extraordinary circumstances.

B. The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

Under Rule 15, a party may amend his pleading “once as a matter of course at any

time before a responsive pleading is served[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because a motion to

dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” within the meaning of the rule, see Schreiber Distrib.

Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986), Plaintiff does not need

leave of Court to file his proposed amended complaint. The Clerk will be directed to file the

lodged proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff should serve the amended complaint on

Defendants within the time set forth above.

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #6) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to complete service and for leave to

amend complaint (Dkt. #7) is granted in part and denied in part. The

Case 2:07-cv-00473-DGC Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

request for an extension of time is granted. Plaintiff shall have until

September 14, 2007 to effect service of process in this case. The request for

leave to amend the complaint is denied as moot. The Clerk shall file the

lodged proposed amended complaint (Dkt. #8).

DATED this 8th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00473-DGC Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3