Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01022-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7429 IRS: Tax Jeopardy Assessment

---

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

George Carrillo )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 05-1022 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R 

)

United States of America, )

)

Defendant. ) )

This matter arises out of a refund suit filed in this Court by

Plaintiff George Carrillo on April 6, 2005 (doc. # 1). On August

12, 2005, the United States filed a motion to dismiss (doc. # 6)

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (5), and (6) for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process,

and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff did not file a responsive

memorandum. Although the Court could have construed Plaintiff's

lack of response as his consent to the dismissal of his case, see

LRCiv 7.2(i), the Court undertook its own inquiry to determine

whether the United States' motion was facially meritorious, see

Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Case 2:05-cv-01022-RCB Document 13 Filed 02/28/06 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 -

On January 25, 2006, the Court issued an Amended Order (doc. #

8), inter alia, dismissing all claims against the Internal Revenue

Service and instead joining the United States as Defendant in this

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). Although the United

States had moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)

for insufficiency of service of process because the time limit for

service had lapsed without its having been served, see Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m), the Court exercised its discretion to extend the time in

which Plaintiff could serve the United States. Am. Order (doc. #

8) at 6-10. The Court granted Plaintiff fifteen (15) days from the

date of entry of its Order (doc. # 8) within which to properly

serve the United States in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). 

Id. at 9-10, 16, 17. In doing so, however, the Court specifically

cautioned Plaintiff three times that his failure to do so would

result in his case being dismissed without prejudice, subject to

any statute of limitations defense. Id. Finally, the Court

converted the United States' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a

Rule 56 motion for summary judgment in light of extrinsic materials

that were provided with its motion. Id. at 10-15.

On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed his response (doc. # 10)

to the United States' converted motion for summary judgment.

On February 16, 2006, the United States filed its Notice of

Plaintiff's Failure to Effectuate Service of Summons and Complaint

(doc. # 12), bringing to the Court's attention the fact reflected

in the record that Plaintiff did not serve the United States within

the fifteen-day extension of time granted by the Court. Because

the time limit for service of process as extended by the Court's

January 25 Order has lapsed without Plaintiff having properly

Case 2:05-cv-01022-RCB Document 13 Filed 02/28/06 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 -

served the United States or shown good cause warranting a further

extension of time, this action is dismissed without prejudice as to

Defendant the United States of America, subject to any statute of

limitations defense. The Court does so pursuant to its authority

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) after having given notice to Plaintiff

of the impending dismissal in its January 25 Order. See Am. Order

(doc. # 8) at 9-10, 16, 17. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that, having determined that Plaintiff was

properly on notice of the impending dismissal of his action for

failure to effectuate service of process within the time limit for

service as extended by the Court's January 25 Order, this action is

DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant the United States of

America pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the United States'

motion to dismiss (doc. # 6) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which was

converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, shall be DENIED

and DISMISSED as moot.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to

enter judgment in favor of Defendant the United States of America

and terminate this case.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:05-cv-01022-RCB Document 13 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 3