Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-01912/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-01912-0/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

John Leo Davis,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Paul Penzone, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV 17-01912 PHX SMB (CDB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH:

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 45) asserts Defendants denied 

him adequate medical care while Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Maricopa County 

Lower Buckeye Jail. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants imposed a substantial burden on his 

free exercise of his religion, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement.

On September 25, 2018, the Court ordered Defendants Steinhauser, Troy, Phillips,

“Jackie” (“RT133,” later identified as Jacqueline Beuzekom), Alvarez, Brooks, Arpaio,

and Penzone to answer Count One; ordered Defendants Corprew and Tracy to answer

Count Two; ordered Defendants Hillary Blank, Brooks, “Jackie,” Alvarez, Arpaio, and 

Penzone to answer Count Three; ordered Defendants Blank, Brooks, “Jackie,” Alvarez, 

Arpaio, and Penzone to answer Counts Four and Five; ordered Defendants Blank, Brooks, 

“Jackie,” Alvarez, Arpaio, and Penzone to answer Count Six; ordered Defendants Blank, 

Brooks, “Jackie,” Alvarez, Arpaio, and Penzone to answer Counts Seven and Eight; 

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 137 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 5
- 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

ordered Defendants Grace (“B1138”) and “RR151” to answer Count Nine; ordered 

Defendants Heather (“HS974,” later identified as Heather Johnson), Brooks, “Jackie,” and 

Alvarez to answer Count Ten; and ordered Defendants Fisk, “Sergeant A7349” (later 

identified as Coly Alger), Murphy, Smith (“A7808”), Arpaio, and Penzone to answer 

Count Eleven. (ECF No. 44). All Defendants who were ordered to answer the Second 

Amended Complaint, except Defendant “RR151” (later identified as Mitchell Davidson)

and Defendant Corprew, have been served and appeared in this matter. Discovery closed 

May 27, 2019, and Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 131)

on all of Plaintiff’s claims for relief.

In an order entered March 6, 2019, Defendants were ordered to disclose, under seal, 

the he last known home addresses of Defendants Tracy, Triage Nurse RR151 (Mitchell 

Davidson), Kenneth Corprew, Gail Steinhauser, and Jeffrey Alvarez. (ECF No. 73). In 

response to the order at ECF No. 73 Defendants, inter alia, stated they could not comply 

with the order as to Defendants Corprew and RR151 (Mitchell Davidson), because 

Corprew and Davidson were not employees of Correctional Health Services (“CHS”) at 

the time of the alleged events. (ECF No. 76 at 3-4). Defendants further stated that they 

were, accordingly, unable to obtain the home addresses of these Defendants. (Id. at 4).

Defendants stated they were only able to “provide information regarding Corprew’s and 

Davidson’s employing agencies at the time of the events alleged in Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint.” (Id.) 

In an order entered March 21, 2019, the Court ordered Defendants to provide the 

last known work addresses of Defendants Corprew and Davidson. (ECF No. 78). In the 

order of March 21, 2019, the Court also extended the time allowed Plaintiff to serve 

Defendants Corprew and Davidson until May 20, 2019. (Id.). Plaintiff was warned that any 

failure to accomplish service by May 20, 2019, might result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's 

claims against these Defendants for his failure to serve them, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.). 

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 137 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

In a pleading filed April 3, 2019, Defendants disclosed Defendant Corprew’s 

employer at the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims as All American 

Healthcare Services, Inc. (ECF No. 82). They also disclosed that Defendant Davidson’s 

employer at the relevant time was Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, with business addresses in 

both Kayenta, Arizona, and Grand Junction, Colorado. (Id.). Service packets with the 

information contained in Defendants’ disclosure at ECF No. 82 were forwarded to the 

United States Marshal on April 4, 2019. Service on Defendant Davidson at his last known 

work address, i.e., at Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, in Kayenta, Arizona, was returned 

unexecuted. (ECF No. 86).

In an order entered May 28, 2019, in granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s 

motion at ECF No. 85, the Court ordered the corporate office of Critical Nursing Staffing, 

LLC, located in Grand Junction, Colorado, to disclose the last known home address of 

Mr. Davidson under seal. (ECF No. 94). In response, Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, sent a 

letter to the Court, stating: “CNS does not have any record that Mitchell Davidson was ever 

an employee of the Company. We checked our payroll system (ADP), our accounting 

system (QuickBooks), searched our paper records, our electronic employee files and could 

not find any record that Mitchell Davidson had ever worked for the Company.” (ECF 

No. 103).

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff was allowed until September 20, 2019, to show cause 

why his claims against Defendant Corprew and Defendant Davidson should not be 

dismissed for the failure to serve these defendants. (ECF No. 106). Plaintiff responded to 

the Order to Show Cause on August 29, 2019, (ECF No. 110), seeking additional time and 

information to effect service on these two defendants. Service on Defendant Corprew was 

again returned as unexecuted on October 3, 2019 (ECF No. 118), and on October 4, 2019, 

additional effort was made to locate an address for service on Defendants Corprew and 

Davidson and the time allowed for service on these defendants was extended to 

November 22, 2019. (ECF No. 119). The Court’s further attempts to discern addresses for 

service on these defendants were unsuccessful. (ECF No. 121). 

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 137 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

Despite inordinate effort and attempts to serve Defendant Corprew and Defendant 

Davidson, including obtaining last known addresses from their employers, all attempts at 

service on these defendants have been unsuccessful. Most recently, after the Court 

conducting telephonic oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 120 (ECF No. 124), 

one further attempt at service on Defendant Davidson on December 26, 2019, was returned 

as unexecuted. (ECF No. 135, docketed January 9, 2020). 

It remains Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the United States Marshal with 

sufficient information to effect service on named Defendants. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 

F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 

U.S. 472 (1995). See also Sims v. Wegman, 743 F. App’x 897, 897 (9th Cir. 2018). The 

Court is not required to act as an investigative body in ascertaining a correct address for a 

defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422; Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 

219 (6th Cir. 2006). “[N]either 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. 

2008), citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). See also Pember v. 

Ryan, 2014 W L 3397735, at *2-3 (D. Ariz. 2014); Allen v. Unknown Party, 2014 WL 

4980857, at *4 (D. Ariz. 2014); Johnson v. Clark, 2013 WL 646022, at *5 (D. Ariz. 2013). 

Federal “judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” 

Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). It is not a federal judge’s role or responsibility to 

investigate a defendant’s whereabouts so a plaintiff may serve process; this degree of 

involvement “would undermine [trial] judges’ role as impartial decision makers.” Id. If the 

Court is satisfied that the obligation to search for a viable address where a defendant can 

be served, such as by securing the defendant’s last known address from their employer at 

the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, then it acts within its discretion to dismiss 

the action against a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Penton v. Pool, 724 F. App’x 

546, 551 (9th Cir. 2018). 

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 137 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 5
- 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

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Corprew and Defendant Davidson and 

Plaintiff’s claims against these two defendants be dismissed without prejudice, based on 

the failure to serve these defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the Court’s Order at ECF No. 44.

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.

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). 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 12th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 137 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 5