Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01630/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01630-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gisela E. Armado, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Advanced Call Center Technologies, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Currently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service of

Process (“Motion”) (Doc. 9) filed by Defendant Advanced Call Center Technologies. 

I. BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging a civil

rights violation (Doc. 1, 1:21) and filed a motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.

(Doc. 3). On August 3, 2010, the Court issued a Standard Civil Track Initial Order, requiring

Plaintiff to effect service of the Complaint and Summons on the Defendant no later than 120

days after filing the Complaint. (Doc. 4, 1). The Court also stated that it would dismiss the

Complaint without further notice to the Plaintiff if the Complaint was not served in

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Id.) On August 17, 2010, the Court granted

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). In that Order, the Court

required Plaintiff to complete and return all necessary documents, by September 16, 2010,

to the Clerk’s office in order for the U.S. Marshal Service to effect service on behalf of

Case 2:10-cv-01630-JAT Document 10 Filed 03/16/11 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 -

Plaintiff. On August 18, 2010, the Clerk’s Office sent the service packet to Plaintiff. 

On September 24, 2010, with the packet still not returned to the Clerk’s office by

Plaintiff, the Court sent an order to Plaintiff to appear and show cause why her case should

not be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court’s Order of August 17, 2010. (Doc. 6).

Plaintiff received this order and appeared before the Court on October 6, 2010, but stated that

she did not receive the packet sent from the Clerk’s Office on August 18, 2010. (Doc. 7).

The Court ordered Plaintiff to contact the Clerk’s Office and have the packet resent. (Id.)

Further, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to return the completed packet to the Clerk’s Office

by November 5, 2010. (Id.) The packet was then returned to the Clerk’s Office on

November 5, 2010, and it was forwarded to the Marshals on November 8, 2010. Defendant

was served with the Complaint and Summons on December 30, 2010 – 151 days after

Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (Doc. 9, 2:26-27). Defendant now argues the Complaint

should be dismissed for failure to comply with the 120 day service requirement of Rule 4(m).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). This Court has reviewed the Defendant’s Motion and history of the

case and now denies Defendant’s Motion. 

II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The time limit for the service of process in federal court is governed by Rule 4(m),

which 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. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). If the Plaintiff shows good cause, the Court “must

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Even without good cause “Courts

have discretion under Rule 4(m) . . . to extend the time for service.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d

507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001). “Courts must apply considerable leeway when assessing whether

a pro se civil rights litigants’ failure to comply strictly with time limits . . . should be excused

for good cause.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 1992) , rev’d on other

grounds (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because pro se [litigants] must rely on the

Case 2:10-cv-01630-JAT Document 10 Filed 03/16/11 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 -

Marshal for service, delays in service attributable to the Marshal automatically constitute

‘good cause’ preventing dismissal under Rule 4(m).” Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 713

(7th Cir. 1995). Further, “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits

counsels strongly against dismissal . . . . This policy favoring resolution on the merits is

particularly important in civil rights cases.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393,

399 (9th Cir. 1998); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.1987) (reversing for

abuse of discretion a Rule 41(b) dismissal of pro se litigant’s § 1983 action for failure to

comply with court order).

Here, the Court extended the date Plaintiff was required to complete and return the

service packet to the Clerk’s Office. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff fulfilled the Court’s requirement and

submitted the packet to the Clerk’s Office by the required date, November 5, 2010 – 24 days

prior to the 120 day expiration of Rule 4(m). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). At that point, Plaintiff

was no longer in control of service. Because any delays were then attributable to the

Marshal, and to facilitate disposition of the case on the merits, the Court denies Defendant’s

Motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for

Insufficiency of Service of Process (Doc. 9). Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond

to the Complaint within 20 days of this Order.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01630-JAT Document 10 Filed 03/16/11 Page 3 of 3