Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01491/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01491-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joey Frank Montoya,

Plaintiff

-vsUnknown Saeg, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-13-1491-PHX-ROS (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

Background - In its Order filed February 20, 2014 (Doc. 13), the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why this case should not be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to effect service. 

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff wrote a letter, which the Clerk of the Court has 

docketed as a Motion for Status (Doc. 15). That motion was stricken as being an 

improper communication with the Court. (Order 3/14/14, Doc. 16.) Plaintiff was given 

an additional 14 days to file a response to the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff has not 

responded.

Application of Law to Facts - 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.” 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) was filed on October 4, 2013. The 

Case 2:13-cv-01491-ROS Document 17 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Court’s service Order (Doc. 8) was entered on December 10, 2013. A review of the 

Court’s file reflects that service on the sole remaining defendant, Defendant Saeg, was 

returned unserved on January 28, 2014. (Doc. 11.) Under the foregoing rules, service in 

this matter should have been completed by February 10, 2014.

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). 

At a minimum, "good cause" means excusable neglect. A plaintiff 

may also be required to show the following: (a) the party to be 

served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the 

defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be 

severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). 

Notwithstanding Rule 4(m), where "good cause does not exist, the court may in 

its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for 

service." Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3rd Cir. 1995). "[I]f 

good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a 

showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order to show Cause and has failed to 

show good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to complete service 

on Defendant Saeg.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule 4(m), this case 

be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

Case 2:13-cv-01491-ROS Document 17 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 3
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

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 8, 2014

13-1491o Order 14 04 07 re RR Dismiss FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01491-ROS Document 17 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 3