Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08235/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08235-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Donald Alphanso Allen, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08235-PCT-SRB

ORDER 

 The Magistrate Judge to whom this prisoner civil rights case was referred 

recommended that Plaintiff’s request to be given more time to attempt personal service 

on the only remaining defendant Jeremy Denoyer be denied, that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to Amend his Complaint be denied and that Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action 

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Defendant Jeremy Denoyer. Plaintiff 

filed timely written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to not 

being given more time to serve Jeremy Denoyer and objects to the recommendation that 

his Motion for Leave to Amend be denied on the grounds that he has the right to amend 

at least once. Plaintiff’s objections will be overruled, and the Court will follow the 

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to deny both of Plaintiff’s motions and to 

dismiss this case without prejudice. 

 In discussing the failure to serve Defendant Jeremy Denoyer, the Magistrate Judge 

noted that Plaintiff had previously filed a prisoner civil rights suit in 2013 that appeared 

to arise out of the identical incident. In 2013 Plaintiff alleged this incident occurred on 

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 21 Filed 06/29/15 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 

April 26, 2012. In the present Complaint the incident is identically described but Plaintiff 

alleged that it occurred on April 26, 2014. In his objections Plaintiff has clarified that the 

reference to 2014 was a typographical error and the correct date of the incident giving 

rise to his claim was April 26, 2012. 

 The prior lawsuit was screened and the claim against only Defendant Jeremy 

Denoyer remained after screening. In that case three attempts to locate Defendant 

Denoyer to effect service of process failed, even after the Court ordered his former 

employer to disclose his last known address and directed the Marshal to serve at that 

address. When service could not be made the case was dismissed. 

 Almost six months have elapsed since the Court directed that Plaintiff return a 

service packet to the United States Marshal Service with information to serve Defendant 

Denoyer. Service has been returned unexecuted. In his objections, Plaintiff suggests a 

host of avenues at his disposal to attempt to locate Defendant Denoyer but provides no 

evidence to the Court that he has pursued these avenues or that any of these avenues 

would likely locate Defendant Denoyer for service. The objections to the 

recommendation that the Motion to Extend Time for Service be denied are overruled. 

 Plaintiff also objects to the recommendation that his Motion for Leave to Amend 

be denied but justifies this solely on the grounds that as a general rule leave to amend 

should be freely given and that denying leave to amend for no reason is an abuse of 

discretion. The proposed amendment simply attempts to add back in the same claims 

against the other defendants that have already been determined by this Court in 2013 and 

in 2015 to fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The proposed 

amendment is futile and the objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is 

overruled. 

 There is yet another reason to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff concedes that 

the incident that gives rise to this lawsuit occurred on April 26, 2012. This lawsuit was 

filed on December 8, 2014, two and one half years after the incident occurred. While § 

1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code does not include its own statute of limitations, 

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 21 Filed 06/29/15 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 

federal courts apply the statute of limitations governing personal injury claims in the 

forum state. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985). TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 

987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). A.R.S. § 12-542 establishes a two-year limitations period for 

personal injury claims. Now that Plaintiff has clarified his typographical error and admits 

that the incident occurred more than two and one half years prior to the filing of this 

lawsuit, it is apparent that the statute of limitations expired on April 26, 2014. This 

complaint was not filed until December 8, 2014. The nature of the allegations that gave 

rise to the claim are that Defendant Denoyer pepper sprayed Plaintiff in the face on April 

26, 2012 resulting in vision impairment and the need for medical treatment. There can be 

no claim that Plaintiff was not aware of the incident giving rise to his claim on or about 

the date that it occurred. 

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

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in this case. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his 

Complaint. (Doc. 12) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to 

Serve Defendant Jeremy Denoyer. (Doc. 10) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action are 

dismissed both for failure to serve Defendant Denoyer and because of the expiration of 

the applicable statute of limitations. 

 Dated this 29th day of June, 2015. 

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 21 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 3