Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01792/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01792-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

WO JWB/GJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ali Partovi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Martinez, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1792-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ali Partovi brought this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He names

Immigrations Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers Carlos Martinez and Miguel Rodriguez

as Defendants. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss due to insufficient service

of process and failure to serve in a timely manner (Doc.# 17). The motion is fully briefed

(Doc.# 21, 23).

The Court will deny Defendants’ motion and will allow Plaintiff an additional 30 days

to properly serve the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claim arises from an incident while he was incarcerated at the ICE Center

in Florence, Arizona on May 15, 2006. Plaintiff alleged he was handcuffed by Defendant

Martinez “so tight the circulation to [his] hands was cut off and bright red cuff marks

[became] visible on both wrists,” (Doc.# 1 at 8). Plaintiff further claimed that Martinez then

forced him to kneel down on both knees and held his hands “as high as they would go

without breaking [his] arms,” while Rodriguez kicked and punched him in the stomach and

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 6
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

1 Mere stylistic changes were made to Rule 4 since this action commenced. However,

to avoid confusion the court will refer to the 2007 Edition of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure throughout this order.

- 2 -

kidney areas. As a result, Plaintiff alleged he is having problems with his urinary and

digestive functions.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants on July 19, 2006 (Doc.# 1). On August

17, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him

to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(i)(2)(B),1

 in either 120 days of the date the Complaint was filed or 60 days of the

filing of the Order. The U.S. Marshal was ordered to personally serve the Summons and

Complaint on Rodriguez and Martinez and send by certified mail the Summons and

Complaint to the U.S. Attorney (USA) for the District of Arizona and the U.S. Attorney

General (USAG)(Doc.# 4). 

Plaintiff completed the service packets for Martinez, Rodriguez (without their first

names), and the U.S. (with instructions that the U.S. can be served through Attorney General

Alberto Gonzales) and returned them to the Clerk of the Court on August 28, 2006. The

service packets for the USAG, Martinez, and Rodriguez were forwarded to the U.S.

Marshal’s Service on August 30, 2006. The Marshal’s Service effectively executed the

Summons on the USAG on September 6, 2006 (Doc.# 5), but failed to take any action with

respect to either Martinez or Rodriguez. The Court again forwarded the service packets for

Martinez and Rodriguez to the Marshal’s Service on May 29, 2007. Summonses for

Rodriguez and Martinez were returned unexecuted on June 5, 2007 due to insufficient

information. On June 11, 2007 the Court ordered another service packet be sent to Plaintiff

with instructions to complete and return the packet to the Clerk of the Court July 2, 2007

(Doc.# 8). Plaintiff filed a “Motion for the Court to Order Access to the First Names of

Martinez and Rodriguez” on June 21, 2007 (Doc.# 9). Construing this as a Motion for Time

Extension, on July 13, 2007, the Court extended Plaintiff’s time to complete and return the

service packets (Doc.# 10). On July 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Issuance of a Writ

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 6
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 -

of Mandamus” to be ordered and served upon ICE Officer Dave Kollus to compel him to

provide the first names of the Defendants to Plaintiff (Doc.# 11). On February 1, 2008, the

Court, construing Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion for deposition, ordered Kollus to provide

Plaintiff with Defendants’ first names and to provide Martinez and Rodriguez with copies

of the Order (Doc.# 12) and the Complaint (Doc.# 1). The Court reset the service packet due

dates for March 13, 2008. The Court received the service packets from Plaintiff as to

Martinez and Rodriguez on February 20, 2008, and on March 11, 2008, the Summons for

Rodriguez and Martinez were returned executed (Doc.# 14 and 15, respectively). 

Defendants now seek dismissal of this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and

12(b)(5), due to insufficient service of process and/or failure to effect service of process

within 120 days following the filing of the complaint. They contend that Martinez and

Rodriguez have yet to be properly served pursuant to Rules 4(e), 4(f), or 4(g), as Patricia

Vroom, District Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, was not authorized to

accept service on behalf of Martinez and Rodriguez. Defendants also contend that the USA

for the District of Arizona has yet to be served pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A). Furthermore,

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has exceeded his 120 day limit of effecting service pursuant

to Rule 4(m). Therefore, Defendants contend this action should be dismissed.

II. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

The issue to be decided is whether Plaintiff had good cause for not effecting proper

service on Defendants in the allotted 120 days and, if good cause cannot be found, whether

Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)(B), 4(i)(1)(A) and

4(i)(1)(B), in order to effectively serve officers of the United States sued individually the

Plaintiff is required to serve the USAG, the USA for the district where the action is brought,

and each officer individually. Under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff must serve Defendants within 120

days after the complaint is filed. If Plaintiff fails to properly serve Defendants within this

time period, the Court must extend Plaintiff’s time to effect service if Plaintiff can show good

cause for the failure. If good cause cannot be found, the court has the discretion to either

dismiss without prejudice or extend the time period. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/09/08 Page 3 of 6
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 The Court notes that Defendants’ motion makes reference to Puett v. Blandford, 895

F.2d 630, 635 (9th Cir. 1990). But this opinion was amended and superceded by the above

cited opinion. A careful look at the amended opinion displays that the Court was concerned

about the “inaction and dilatoriness” of the Plaintiff rather than the failure to provide correct

information to the Marshal’s service on the first try. Puett, 912 F.2d at 274. 

- 4 -

Cir. 2001).

A. Service on the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona

Plaintiff has yet to effect service on the United States Attorney. Though he properly

filled out the service packet for the United States, Plaintiff included instructions to serve the

United States through Attorney General Alberto Gonzales without mentioning the USA. 

Rule 4(i)(2)(B) mandates that service be made on the United States when action is

brought against officers or employees of the government being sued in their individual

capacities for acts or omissions occurring in connection with the performance of duties on

behalf of the United States. Rule 4(i)(1)(A) and 4(i)(1)(B) defines service on the U.S. as

service on the USA for the district in which the action is brought and service of the USAG.

Due to their reliance on the U.S. Marshal to effect service, courts have dealt leniently

with plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. In Immerman v. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture ex

rel., the Court found that, due to the plaintiff’s pro se and in forma pauperis status, the

confusion regarding the service instructions, the fact that process was served on the named

defendant, and that the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiff’s claim, the district court

had abused its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to properly and timely serve the

summons and complaint. 267 Fed.Appx., 609 (9th Cir. 2008). In Puett v. Blandford, the

Court found that, after giving the necessary information to effectuate service, good cause is

found “where the U.S. Marshal or the court has failed to perform the duties required of each

of them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 912

F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990).2

Though not specifically identified in Plaintiff’s service packet, the U.S. Marshal had

sufficient information to know the USA needed to be served based on the contents of Rule

4. If this was not sufficient information, the Court’s Order to the Marshal to serve both the

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/09/08 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

USA for Arizona and the USAG should have been sufficient (Doc.# 3, Par. IV(C)(5)(b)).

Due to the Marshal’s oversight, the confusing summons instructions, and the Court’s failure

to put Plaintiff on notice for this deficiency, good cause is found in Plaintiff’s failure to serve

the Arizona USA. The Court will, therefore, provide Plaintiff with 30 days to effect service

on the USA for Arizona.

B. Service on Martinez and Rodriguez

Defendants claim that their service was improperly effected through District Counsel

Vroom. In addition, Defendants were served more than nineteen months after Plaintiff’s

Complaint was filed, far in excess of the 120 days allotted.

 Personal service upon individuals is not required for proper service. Rule 4(e)(2)

allows for service through an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service

of process. Defendants have not claimed Vroom was not an authorized agent, but merely

note that she accepted service. They submit no evidence, other than their argument, that

Vroom was not an agent authorized to accept service. Legal memoranda does not constitute

evidence. See British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff has fulfilled his part in providing the necessary information for service to be effected

and will not be penalized for any mistakes the Marshal’s Service may have made. Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273

(9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)

(incarcerated pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis are entitled to rely on the

Marshal for service of summons and complaint and cannot be penalized by dismissal of the

action for failure to effect service where the Marshal has failed to perform his duties).

Plaintiff has shown diligence in effecting service on Defendants, from which Defendants

have actual notice of the action against them.

While Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants within 120 days, he is only minimally

responsible for the delay. The Court twice sent the service packet to the Marshal, but the

unexecuted service did not return to Plaintiff until nine months after Plaintiff returned the

packets to the Court. Through no fault of his own, Plaintiff did not learn of Defendants’ first

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/09/08 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

names in order to properly serve them until nearly nineteen months after his Complaint was

filed. Due to difficulties outside of Plaintiff’s control, service on Defendants is deemed

proper and timely.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants Rodriguez and Martinez’s Motion to Dismiss for insufficiency of

process and/or failure to effect service of process in a timely manner (Doc. #17) is denied.

(2) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint,

this Order, and a summons form for the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona.

(3) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within

30 days of the date of filing of this Order. 

(4) The United States Marshal must send by certified mail a copy of the Summons for

each individual Defendant, the Summons for the United States, and the Complaint to the civil

process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona.

DATED this 8th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/09/08 Page 6 of 6