Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02173/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02173-2/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 

Jose Abel Fierro, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02173-PHX-PGR (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

 This matter is before the Court on its own review. On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Docs. 45, 46.) The Court also ordered the United 

States Marshal Service (USMS) to serve several Defendants, including Defendant East. 

(Doc. 45 at 2) 

 In June 2015, service on Defendant East was attempted at the Arizona State Prison 

Complex (APSC) in Tucson, but was returned unexecuted because he does not work 

there. (Doc. 61.) To facilitate service of process, the Court ordered the served 

Defendants to provide Defendant East’s last known work or home address. (Doc. 102.) 

Defendants complied with the Court’s order by providing a work address for Defendant 

East at ASPC-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, and service was attempted at that address. 

(Doc. 108.) In November 2015, service was returned unexecuted because East no longer 

works at ASPC-Lewis. (Doc. 155.) Because the served Defendants only provided a 

work address, the Court directed the served Defendants to provide under seal Defendant 

East’s last known home address. (Doc. 156.) Defendants complied with the Court’s 

Case 2:13-cv-02173-PGR-BSB Document 248 Filed 02/25/16 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 

order and service was attempted at the address Defendants provided. (Docs. 163, 231.) 

In February 2016, service was returned unexecuted because Defendant East does not 

reside at that address. (Doc. 231.) 

 Because Plaintiff had not served Defendant East despite several extensions of time 

to do so and the assistance of the served Defendants, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 

cause why his claims against Defendant East should not be dismissed for failure to serve. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Doc. 232.) Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause. 

(Doc. 245.) Plaintiff’s response recounts the history of the service attempts on Defendant 

East. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to provide adequate address 

information and that the ability to serve Defendant East is “out of Plaintiff’s control.” 

(Id. at 3.) The record reflects that Defendants have provided several addresses for 

Defendant East to help facilitate service of process on that Defendant. Despite that 

information, the USMS has been unable to serve Defendant East. 

 A “pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. 

Marshal for service of the summons and complaint[.]” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 

275 (9th Cir. 1990). However, the plaintiff is responsible for providing the information 

necessary to locate the defendant. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 

1994) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 

(1995). Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint nearly a year ago and has yet to 

provide adequate information for the USMS to serve Defendant East with that pleading 

despite having several extensions of time to do so, and despite receiving Defendants’ 

assistance. Therefore, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

East be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant East without prejudice for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Case 2:13-cv-02173-PGR-BSB Document 248 Filed 02/25/16 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 

 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely 

objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a 

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72. 

 Dated this 25th day of February, 2016. 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02173-PGR-BSB Document 248 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 3