Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00847/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00847-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andre Almond Dennison, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-0847-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Plaintiff, Andre Almond Dennison, filed his Civil Rights Complaint against 10

defendants employed by the Arizona Department of Corrections on May 2, 2008. A

screening order was issued on July 8, 2008 and Plaintiff was given permission to complete

and return service packets for all 10 defendants for service by the United States Marshal.

Prior to service being effected, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding four

additional defendants from the Arizona Department of Corrections. He was given permission

to serve those additional defendants and 13 of the 14 defendants were served by waiver of

service in September and October 2008. With respect to Defendant Khamou, Plaintiff was

notified by return of service filed September 25, 2008 that the summons had been returned

unexecuted as to Defendant Khamou because he was no longer employed by the Arizona

Department of Corrections. Defendants, except Khamou, answered on November 4 and 5,

Case 2:08-cv-00847-SRB Document 97 Filed 07/15/09 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 -

2008 and a scheduling order was issued on November 13, 2008 setting a discovery deadline

of April 6, 2009 and a dispositive motion deadline of June 3, 2009.

Plaintiff took no action to obtain service information for this Defendant until February

2009, approximately five months after he was notified that service could not be made on

Defendant Khamou through the Arizona Department of Corrections. On February 17, 2009,

included within multiply discovery requests made to five different defendants, was a request

for production of documents that included a request for the last known address of Defendant

Khamou. Plaintiff never filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Serve or brought to the

Court’s attention any issue with respect to completing service on Defendant Khamou until

after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Defendant Khamou should not be

dismissed because he had not been served in a timely manner. 

On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff directing

that he file a memorandum showing cause why Defendant Khamou should not be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to effect timely service. On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

response advising the Court that included in his February 17, 2009 requests for production

of documents was a request to Defendant Schriro to produce the full name and home address

of Defendant Khamou. Plaintiff offered nothing in that memorandum showing cause for his

delay in seeking this information or for his failure to move to extend the time to serve. 

The Magistrate Judge issued an order on May 6, 2009, construing Plaintiff’s March

30, 2009 filing as a Motion to Extend Time for Service. Noting that Plaintiff took no action

for almost 5 months after service on Defendant Khamou was returned unexecuted, made no

discovery requests to obtain service information for more than three months after the Court’s

scheduling order was issued and offered no explanation for his extraordinary delay, the Court

found no good cause to extend and denied the extension. On June 4, 2009, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending this action be dismissed as to

Defendant Khamou without prejudice for failure to effect timely service. 

Plaintiff filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 12, 2009

requesting that this Court allow Defendant Khamou to remain a defendant and order the

Case 2:08-cv-00847-SRB Document 97 Filed 07/15/09 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 -

Defendants to produce his last know contact information so that he can be served.

Acknowledging that he knew that service was returned unexecuted on September 25, 2008

because Defendant Khamou has been terminated from his employment with the Arizona

Department of Corrections, Plaintiff suggests that ever since he had been trying to locate

Khamou’s home address for service and further suggested that Defendants hindered his

efforts to locate Defendant Khamou’s service information implying that the obligation was

on the Defendants to volunteer this information without request. Plaintiff admits that he did

not request this information of the Defendants until February 17, 2009, as part of a larger

request for production of documents.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff failed to show good cause

for his failure to effect timely service on Defendant Khamou. He took no action in the nearly

5 months after he became aware that service had been returned unexecuted. In the interim,

a scheduling order was entered, discovery has now closed and Defendants have filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment. Had Plaintiff wished to prosecute this case against

Defendant Khamou he was obligated to be more diligent about obtaining the service

information or requesting the Court’s assistance. Instead he waited until shortly before the

close of discovery to make his first request for information and long after the time to serve

had expired. The Court notes that the Plaintiff was advised early on of the deadlines for

service. In the initial screening order entered on July 8, 2008 Plaintiff was specifically

advised that service was required to be made on all defendants within 120 days of the filing

of the complaint or 60 days from the date of service order whichever is later and that the

failure to serve may result in the dismissal of the unserved defendants.

IT IS ORDERED overruling the Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation as the order

of this Court. (Doc. 73).

Case 2:08-cv-00847-SRB Document 97 Filed 07/15/09 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be dismissed as to Defendant Khamou

without prejudice for failure to effect timely service as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m).

DATED this 14th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00847-SRB Document 97 Filed 07/15/09 Page 4 of 4