Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08235/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08235-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Alphanso Allen, 

also named as: Donald A Allen,

 Plaintiff,

v.

Charles Ryan, Pamela Rider, Management 

Training Corporation, Jeremy Denoyer, 

 Defendants.

No. CV 14-08235 PCT SRB (MEA)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff docketed a prisoner civil rights complaint and a 

motion for leave to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis and a motion seeking the 

appointment of counsel. See Doc. 1, Doc. 2, Doc. 5. The basis of Plaintiff’s claim is an 

incident Plaintiff alleges occurred on or about April 26, 2014, during which Defendant 

Denoyer sprayed Plaintiff in the face with pepper spray. See Doc. 1 at 3. After Plaintiff 

complained, Defendant Rider terminated Defendant Denoyer’s employment as a 

Correctional Officer based on this incident. Id., Attach. Plaintiff asserts the other 

defendants are liable for Defendant Denoyer’s act based on negligent hiring and training 

and vicarious liability.

In an order entered January 22, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied the motion for counsel without prejudice. 

The Court also dismissed Defendants Ryan, Rider, Management Training Corporation 

and the defendants identified as “Capts, Sgts, and Lts of the first shift staff.” Doc. 8. The 

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 15 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 ordered Plaintiff to return a service packet for Defendant Denoyer to the Court. Id. 

Plaintiff returned a service packet for Defendant Denoyer to the Court and also docketed 

a motion seeking an order “Directing the US Marshal’s to Serve Summons in Person to 

Defendant Denoyer” (Doc. 10). On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff docketed a motion seeking 

leave to amend his complaint and lodged a proposed first amended complaint. See Doc. 

12 & Doc. 13. In the proposed amended complaint Plaintiff seeks to add back in to this 

matter the claims and Defendants previously dismissed. On March 23, 2015, service was 

returned as unexecuted on Defendant Denoyer. See Doc. 14.

Plaintiff previously filed a prisoner civil rights suit naming as defendants Pamela 

Rider, the President of the Management Training Corporation, “Unknown” Denoyer, and 

“Capt, Sgt, & Lt of the First Shift Staff,” which case was docketed as 3:13 cv 8048 PCT 

DJH. In that matter Plaintiff alleged an incident identical to the incident alleged in the 

instant matter, except Plaintiff alleged this even occurred on April 26, 2012. See 3:13 cv 

8048 at Doc. 7 (First Amended Complaint). In that matter, the only defendant that 

survived the Court’s screening order at Doc. 9 was Defendant Denoyer. In that matter, 

despite three attempts to locate Defendant Denoyer to effect service of process, including 

ordering the Management and Training Corporation to disclose the last known address of 

this defendant under seal and an attempt by the Marshal to serve this defendant at that 

address, Defendant was not served and the matter was dismissed.

Plaintiff’s complaint in this matter alleges liability based on events Plaintiff 

previously averred to the Court occurred in 2012, although Plaintiff now asserts they 

occurred in 2014. Additionally, the only defendant the Court has twice found potentially 

liable for any injury to Plaintiff is a defendant that no one has been able to locate.

Although Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, it remains Plaintiff's responsibility 

to provide the United States Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect 

service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other

grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995). And the Court is not 

required to act as an investigative body in ascertaining a correct address for Defendant

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 15 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Denoyer, certainly when it has already expended judicial resources in an effort to do so. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. The District Court judges of the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona have concluded that “neither the 

[USMS] nor the Court may engage in investigatory efforts on behalf of the parties to a 

lawsuit as this would improperly place the Court in the role of an advocate.” E.g.,

DeRoche v. Funkhouser, 2008 WL 42277659, at *1 (D. Ariz.), citing Hall v. Bellmon, 

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that the Court should not assume the role 

of advocate for a pro se litigant). See also Pember v. Ryan, 2014 WL 3397735, at *2–*3 

(D. Ariz). The United States Supreme Court has made clear that federal “judges have no 

obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 

231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004) As an impartial decision maker, it is not a federal 

judge’s role or responsibility to track down a defendant’s address so a plaintiff may serve 

process. This degree of involvement “would undermine [trial] judges’ role as impartial 

decision makers.” Id.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 12) for leave to amend 

his complaint be denied.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 10) asking 

the Court to order the Marshal to attempt personal service on Defendant Denoyer be 

denied, because the record in this matter and the 2013 matter indicates Defendant 

Denoyer no longer resides at the address provided under seal by the Management 

Training Corporation.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint and this action 

be dismissed without prejudice for the failure to serve the only defendant in this matter.

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.

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 15 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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

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. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Dated this 2nd day of April, 2015.

Case 3:14-cv-08235-SRB-DMF Document 15 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 4