Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00396/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00396-2/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

-vsTodd Thomas, et al.,

Defendants

CV-09-0396-PHX-JWS (JRI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Background - Service on Defendant Maccri was returned unexecuted on July 22,

2010 (Doc. 65). Appearing defendants were ordered to produce a last known address for

Maccri. (Order 7/28/10, Doc. 68.) That information was provided (Doc. 69), and service was

returned unexecuted on October 29, 2010 (Doc. 76). Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why

Maccri should not be dismissed. (Order 12/2/10, Doc. 78.) Plaintiff responded (Docs. 86, 87),

pointing out that the service attempt failed to include an attempt at personal service, so

personal service was again ordered, and the time for service extended until March 5, 2011.

(Order 2/3/11, Doc. 91.) A return of service unexecuted was again filed on February 16, 2011

(Doc. 92), indicating that Defendant Maccri does not reside at the address provided. Because

Plaintiff had taken no further action to complete service, on March 17, 2011, Plaintiff was

ordered (Doc. 98) to show cause why Defendant Maccri should not be dismissed for failure

to effect service.

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff responded (Doc. 99) arguing that: (1) he did not receive

a return of service unexecuted from the U.S. Marshals Service; (2) he should be entitled to

proceed by service by leaving the summons at Maccri’s dwelling or delivery to an agent; (3)

Defendant Maccri has had prior notice of his claims during a meeting; (4) because Plaintiff

is appearing in forma pauperis, the U.S. Marshals Service has a duty to effect service, and

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 104 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

should be directed to investigate Defendant’s whereabouts; (5) Plaintiff has diligently

pursued service. Plaintiff requests an extension of time for service and an order to the

Arizona Attorney General’s office to provide an address for Defendant Landreth.

Dismissal for Failure to Serve - 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.” Under the foregoing rules, service of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should

have been completed by September 20, 2010. 

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).

No Good Cause - Apart from Plaintiff’s general obligation to abide by the applicable

rules, Plaintiff was put on notice in the Court’s original screening order of his obligations

with regard to timely service:

If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons

or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant

within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the

filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as

to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

16.2(b)(2)(B)(I).

(Order 3/27/09, Doc. 4 at 8.) Plaintiff’s purported “cause” to avoid dismissal is unavailing.

The undersigned assumes arguendo Plaintiff indeed did not receive a copy of the

return of service unexecuted from the U.S. Marshals Service filed March 14, 2011 (Doc. 97).

If Plaintiff had any viable alternative for pursuing service, the undersigned might be inclined

to deem this a reason to further extend the time of service. As discussed hereinafter, Plaintiff

proposes no viable alternative.

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 104 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 4
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 proposes he should be entitled to proceed by service by leaving the summons

at Maccri’s dwelling or delivery to an agent. However, Maccri’s dwelling is unknown, as

established by the latest return of service, and Plaintiff does not suggest who might have been

authorized by Defendant Maccri as an agent to accept service.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Maccri has had prior notice of his claims during a

meeting. That does not suffice for service of a summons from the Court to respond to a

complaint.

Plaintiff argues that because is appearing in forma pauperis, the U.S. Marshals

Service has a duty to effect service, and should be directed to investigate Defendant’s

whereabouts. “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to

rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint, and, having provided the

necessary information to help effectuate service, plaintiff should not be penalized by having

his or her action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court

clerk has failed to perform the duties required of each of them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) and

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990). 

Here, Plaintiff has not provided “the necessary information to help effectuate service.”

Rather, the address provided to the U.S. Marshals Service under seal was apparently

outdated. Plaintiff suggests that Defendants should be again directed to provide an address

for service. Plaintiff proffers no reason to believe that a better address will be available.

Moreover, Plaintiff makes no indication that he has, in the interim, undertaken any

independent efforts to locate Defendant Maccri. Plaintiff assets Defendant has “transferred

over to the state penitentiary for a position as an official.” (Doc. 99 at 2.) Plaintiff does not

show that he has independently attempted to pursue obtaining an address for service on

Defendant Maccri through the Arizona Department of Corrections, nor even attempted to

determined whether he is employed there. While “incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding in forma

pauperis may rely on service by the U.S. Marshals, a plaintiff may not remain silent and do

nothing to effectuate such service.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987)

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 104 Filed 04/21/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions that he has diligently pursued service, the

record reflects that Plaintiff has sat idly by, ignoring the status of his service of Defendant

Maccri until faced with an order to show cause threatening dismissal of this defendant,

looking to the Court and the Marshals Service to accomplish service without effort on his

own behalf.

Under these circumstances, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for an extension

of time to effect service or for the issuance of a subpoena to facilitate such service.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Maccri be DISMISSED

for failure to effect timely service.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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

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(b), 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: April 20, 2011 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\09-0396-r RR 11 04 11 re FTsrv Maccri.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 104 Filed 04/21/11 Page 4 of 4