Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

Llyal Gordon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Timothy Franz Geithner, Secretary of the

United States Treasury; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 12-580-TUC-LAB

Report and Recommendation

Pending before the court is this court’s own order to show cause why this case should

not be dismissed for failure to timely serve. (Doc. 36)

This case was initially assigned to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to LRCiv 3.7(b).

Because the plaintiff has not yet filed a Judicial Consent form, this court has prepared a

report and recommendation that will be directed to District Judge Raner C. Collins.

Discussion

On August 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in this court

claiming improper collection of taxes. He names as defendants Timothy Franz Geithner, the

Secretary of the United States Treasury, Allen Morgan, a revenue officer of the Internal

Revenue Service, and Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of Social Security. He is

apparently suing these three in their individual capacity for actions taken “in connection with

Case 4:12-cv-00580-LAB Document 39 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

duties performed on the United States’ behalf.” (Doc. 11, p. 2); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(i) Service,

however, has not been timely accomplished in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(i, m). 

When the 120-day deadline for service passed, this court issued the plaintiff an order

to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Doc. 33) The court cautioned the

plaintiff that if he failed to file a timely response, the case could be dismissed without further

notice. Id. The plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause, but the court extended

the deadline for service to March 6, 2013 because it appeared that the plaintiff was still trying

to accomplish service. (Doc. 35)

When the extended deadline for filing passed, the court issued the plaintiff a second

order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve. (Doc.

36) The court again cautioned the plaintiff that if he failed to file a timely response, the case

could be dismissed without further notice. Id.

The deadline for filing a response to the order to show cause has passed, but the

plaintiff has filed neither a response nor proof of service in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(l). 

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING this action for failure to timely serve and for failure to respond. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived.

 DATED this 2nd day of April, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00580-LAB Document 39 Filed 04/03/13 Page 2 of 2