Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01955/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01955-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Ibrm Ibn Albinsiio Greagor,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-14-1955-PHX-SPL (JFM)

Order and

Report & Recommendation

Background - In the Order filed September 2, 2015 (Doc. 23), the Court screened 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20), filed August 24, 2015. The Court 

directed Defendant Hunter to answer Count Four. Defendant Shift Officer John Doe was 

not dismissed, and Plaintiff was directed to amend his complaint to name him when his 

identity was obtained through discovery. On November 5, 2015, service on Defendant 

Hunter was returned unexecuted (Doc. 28). Plaintiff sought an extension of time to 

serve, and again attempted service. (Order 1/6/16, Doc. 32.) On April 18, 2016, service 

on Defendant Hunter was again returned unexecuted (Doc. 38). 

In the meantime, Plaintiff sought (Doc. 34) and obtained (Doc. 35) assistance 

from the Court to discover the identity (Townsend) of Defendant Shift Officer John Doe, 

and the Second Amended Complaint was deemed amended to name him, and service 

was ordered. (Order 4/20/16, Doc. 40.) 

First Order to Show Cause - In the Order filed April 20, 2016 (Doc. 40), the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why Defendant Hunter should not 

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service. In response, Plaintiff filed 

“interrogatories” (Doc. 42) addressed to no one, which the Court struck for that reason 

and matters of form. (Order 5/4/16, Doc. 43.) Plaintiff then again moved (Doc. 45) for 

an extension of time to complete service, which the Court granted, giving Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 7
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

through June 10, 2016. (Order 5/12/16, Doc. 45.)

In the meantime, service on Defendant Townsend was completed, and on June 16, 

2016 the Court issued a scheduling Order (Doc. 50), setting an initial discovery cutoff 

date of 10/13/16. Upon receipt of the parties’ joint discovery plan, that schedule was 

amended to extend the discovery cutoff to November 14, 2016. (Order 8/2/16, Doc. 65.) 

Second Order to Show Cause - Service on Defendant Hunter had not progressed, 

and on June 21, 2016, the Court again issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 51) why 

Hunter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff responded on June 29, 2016 (Doc. 56), seeking 

additional time to serve and arguing that Plaintiff had sent interrogatories to “the 

defendants representatives” to attempt to locate Hunter. 

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 57) and a Motion for Service (Doc. 

62). The Motion for Service sought to authority serve Hunter’s employer, rather than 

Hunter. The Motion to Compel sought Hunter’s address. 

The Court construed the Motion to Compel as seeking a subpoena to jail officials, 

or requiring acceptance of service, and set a time for Defendant Townsend to respond. 

(Order 7/19/16, Doc. 60.) Townsend responded (Doc. 63) that Hunter was not employed 

by Townsend’s employer (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) or the Maricopa County 

Attorney, and the latter had no authority to accept service for Hunter.

The Court denied both motions with prejudice. That Order observed:

The Court ordinarily might be inclined to sua sponte issue a 

subpoena directing the last known employer to provide a last known 

address for Defendant Hunter. But, Plaintiff has allowed the original 

service deadline of November 22, 2015 (see Scheduling Order, Doc. 

50 at 1), initial extended deadline of March 7, 2016 (see Order 

1/6/16, Doc. 31), and second extended deadline of June 10, 2016 

(see Order 5/12/16, Doc. 46) to pass. Almost an entire year has 

passed since service on Hunter was ordered. (See Order 9/2/15, 

Doc. 23.) Moreover, the extended deadline for discovery requests is 

November 14, 2015, and thus discovery will be all but complete by 

the time Defendant Hunter could be served. At this stage Defendant 

Hunter is ripe to be dismissed

(Order 8/31/16, Doc. 68 at 3.) Plaintiff has not objected to that Order.

Instead, on September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Stay of Discovery

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 7
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

(Doc. 69), seeking to stay discovery until service on Hunter could be completed, asking 

for a subpoena to Hunter’s last known employer (arguing Plaintiff was unaware of the 

employer’s address until July 13, 2016), and indicating Plaintiff’s intent to amend his 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) to add “additional charges on defendant Hunter.” 

Failure to Timely Serve - 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. 

Effective December 1, 2015, Rule 4(m) was amended to reduce the time for service to 90 

days. 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.” Under these rules, Plaintiff had through no later than Tuesday, 

December 22, 2015 to complete service (applying the 120 day rule), and arguably only 

had through Monday, November 23, 2015 (applying the 60 day rule). 

However, the Court has twice extended that deadline, with it finally expiring on 

June 10, 2016. (Order 1/6/16, Doc. 32; Order 5/12/16, Doc. 46.) 

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). 

Despite the Court’s repeated extensions and Orders to Show Cause (Doc. 40), 

Plaintiff has failed to complete service and the only good cause for his delay that he has 

proffered has been his lack of familiarity with litigation. The undersigned does not find 

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 7
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

good cause to excuse the expansive delay.

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). 

To determine whether a plaintiff demonstrates excusable neglect, courts use the 

test set forth in Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 394 

(1993), and Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1997). See 

Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198 (holding that plaintiff had established excusable neglect for 

the purposes of Rule 4(m) via the Pioneer-Briones test). The Pioneer-Briones test is as 

follows:

[T]he determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable 

one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice 

to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) 

whether the movant acted in good faith.

Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-1224 (9th Cir.2000). 

Again, Plaintiff has failed to offer any showing of excusable neglect. Based on 

the information available to the Court, all but the last factor call for a finding of no 

excusable neglect. 

Danger of Prejudice to Unserved Defendant, Length of Delay and Impact –

Defendant Hunter, if eventually served, would be brought into litigation which has been 

pending since September 5, 2014, and concerning events which occurred almost three 

years ago, on June 13, 2013. (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 20 at 4.) Moreover, in 

light of the age of the case, the Court anticipate maintaining strict deadlines for 

discovery and trial preparation. Indeed, in the Order granting the recent extension, the 

Court observed: “Given the age of this case, the Court is generally not inclined to expand 

the schedule.” (Order 8/2/16, Doc. 65 at 1.) 

Over ten months have expired since service on Defendant Hunter was first 

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

returned unexecuted (Doc. 28). The latest attempt was returned unexecuted on April 18, 

2016 (Doc. 38), more than five months ago. Plaintiff still is unprepared to proceed with 

service, but is again seeking discovery to locate Defendant Hunter.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds a likelihood of prejudice to the unserved 

defendant, that the length of delay (over a year since the Court’s service Order) calls for 

dismissal, and that the likely impact will be delay in the proceeding if Plaintiff is 

permitted to continue to attempt service.

Reason for Delay - Plaintiff's fitful attempts at pursuing service on this defendant, 

do not demonstrate diligence. Rather, much of the delay is attributable to simple neglect. 

Plaintiff has shown little to establish diligence. His first request to extend the 

deadline (11/12/15, Doc. 29) simply argued ongoing efforts to locate an address. His 

second request (1/4/16, Doc. 31) argued he had new information on Hunter. His third 

request (5/9/16, Doc. 45) argued he was trying his best to confirm Hunter’s identity and 

address, and had been given information by the MCSO legal liaison. 

His response (Doc. 56, 6/29/16) to the first Order to Show Cause (Doc. 51) 

argued Plaintiff had sent interrogatories to Defendant Townsend, and asserted Plaintiff 

did not understand what he was doing wrong. However

His response (8/2/16, Doc. 65) to the second Order to Show Cause (Doc. 51) 

argued he had sent interrogatories to Defendant Townsend to find Hunter. But that 

request had not been sent until June 21, 2016 (Doc. 55), some 10 days after his final 

extension to serve Hunter had expired. 

Plaintiff’s inexperience might justify some delay. But Plaintiff has had almost an 

entire year to serve Hunter. Moreover, Plaintiff’s solution he now seeks in his recent 

motion (Doc. 69) is a solution that the Court employed almost nine months ago to assist 

Plaintiff in obtaining an address for service on Defendant Townsend, e.g. a subpoena to 

the defendant’s employer. (See Order 3/23/16, Doc. 35.) Rather than being diligent 

throughout the life of the litigation, Plaintiff has delayed until after his twice extend time 

to serve had run, and finally began seeking discovery from Defendant Townsend and 

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 5 of 7
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

assistance from the Court. 

Good faith - There appears no reason to conclude that Plaintiff has acted in bad 

faith, as opposed to simply being dilatory. 

Summary Regard Service and Dismissal - Plaintiff has failed to show good 

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

Defendant Hunter. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of 

Defendant Hunter. 

In light of that conclusion, Plaintiff’s latest attempts at conducting discovery to 

serve Hunter will be denied.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Discovery, 

filed September 8, 2016 (Doc. 69) is DENIED.

RECOMMENDATION

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

Defendant Hunter 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 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

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: September 19, 2016

14-1955o Order 16 05 10 re RR Dismiss FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01955-SPL-JFM Document 70 Filed 09/20/16 Page 7 of 7