Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729-6/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

James E. Skinner,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01729-PHX-SMM (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Court Judge 

(Doc. 183). The determination of the undersigned is dispositive regarding one of 

Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the undersigned makes the following Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

and (C).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff James Skinner is currently incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex (ASPC) – Manzanita Unit and filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) 

alleging a violation of his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. One of the defendants named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is “Rita 

Duarte.” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), the Court ordered that Defendant Duarte 

respond to Count I of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). A service packet 

was forwarded to the United States Marshals Service (USMS) on February 28, 2013 

regarding Defendant Duarte. By Process Receipt and Return (Doc. 16) filed on March 

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 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

21, 2013, the summons was returned unexecuted with the following remark by USMS: 

“Mail out for Rita was returned via mail ‘RTS’ unable to locate at given address.” The 

address given by Mr. Skinner for Defendant Duarte was: “Rita Duarte, ASPC-Florence, 

Central Unit, P.O. Box 8200, Florence, AZ 85132.”

On May 7, 2013, the Court ordered Defendant Ryan to file a current work address 

for Defendant Duarte if she was still employed by the Arizona Department of Corrections 

(ADOC) (Doc. 29). Alternatively, the Court ordered Defendant Ryan to file under seal 

the last known address for Defendant Duarte. Id. On May 8, 2013, defense counsel filed 

a Notice of Filing Last Known Work Address for several defendants, including a “Rita S. 

Duarte” at ADOC, 480 North Mesa Drive, Suite 210, Mesa, AZ 85201-5957 (Doc. 30). 

On September 26, 2013, a new service packet was forwarded to USMS for Defendant 

“Rita S. Duarte.” On October 28, 2013, by Process Receipt and Return (Doc. 59), the 

summons for “Rita S. Duarte” was returned unexecuted with the following USMS 

remark: “Packet returned. Called HR Rita S. Duarte is no longer employed w/ADOC as 

of October 18, 2013. Unable to serve.”

Thereafter, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by no later than November 

29, 2013 why Defendant Duarte should not be dismissed without prejudice from the case 

for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., and LRCiv 

16.2(b)(2)(B)(i) (Doc. 73). Plaintiff timely responded and requested that Defendants be 

ordered to file “Rita S. Duarte’s” home address under seal (Doc. 75). The Court found 

Plaintiff’s explanation to be persuasive and ordered Defendant Ryan to file the home 

address for “Rita S. Duarte” under seal and the Clerk of the Court to forward the address 

to USMS for a third service attempt (Doc. 95). Alternatively, the Court allowed counsel 

to file a notice accepting service of process on behalf of Defendant Duarte. 

Defense counsel filed “Rita S. Duarte’s” last known home address under seal on 

January 9, 2014 (Doc. 98), and the Clerk of Court forwarded a third Service Packet to 

USMS on January 10, 2014. By Process Receipt and Return filed on January 15, 2014, 

the summons again was returned unexecuted with the following USMS remark: “Unable 

- 2 -

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 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

to locate, house vacant per neighbors at address given, the house hase [sic] been vacant 

for 6 weeks – ” (Doc. 104).

On March 12, 2014, the Court on its own motion dismissed without prejudice 

Defendant Duarte from the case for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m) (Doc. 134).

A fully briefed Motion for Summary Judgment is currently pending before the 

Court. However, on February 3, 2015, counsel for Mr. Skinner filed the pending Motion 

for Sanctions (Doc. 191) which was referred to the undersigned for consideration. A 

Response (Doc. 192) and Reply (Doc. 193) were timely filed.

DISCUSSION

In his Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 191), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan or 

the Attorney General committed a fraud upon the Court by concealing vital information 

from the Court and opposing party regarding the last known home address of Defendant 

Duarte. When Defendants used testimony (“Declaration”) from Ms. Duarte in support of 

their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 177-9, page 2), Plaintiff learned that Ms. 

Duarte has remained in the employ of ADOC throughout this litigation. Plaintiff asserts 

that Defendants knew Ms. Duarte’s whereabouts and purposefully concealed her location 

to avoid service of process and effect a dismissal as to Ms. Duarte. Plaintiff requests the 

Court sanction Defendants by striking their Answer and defaulting Defendants. No 

authority is cited for this extreme remedy. Plaintiff attributes negative connotations to 

the fact that Ms. Duarte was only one of two Defendants who did not waive service of 

process. Plaintiff posits that if Defendants were able to find Ms. Duarte for purposes of 

their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants were at all times able to provide correct 

information to the Court to enable USMS to effectuate service of process in a timely 

manner upon Ms. Duarte. The Declaration of Ms. Duarte is dated September 3, 2014. 

Therefore, Plaintiff argues that the Attorney General was aware of Ms. Duarte’s correct 

location prior to the Court’s order dismissing her from the litigation, during the many 

attempts of the USMS to serve her. Plaintiff suggests a “cover up” based upon Duarte 

- 3 -

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 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

signatures appearing within documents disclosed to Plaintiff which do not appear to have 

been generated by the same person. (Doc. 191, page 7).

In their Response (Doc. 192), Defendants provide a reasonable explanation for 

having provided incorrect addresses for Defendant Duarte. Defendants state that there 

were two individuals with the first name “Rita” and the last name “Duarte” who were 

employed by the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) at the start of this 

litigation: Defendant Rita J. Duarte (“Defendant Rita J. Duarte”) and an unrelated Rita 

S. Duarte (“Non-Party Rita S. Duarte”). Defendant Rita J. Duarte’s correct ADOC 

business address in Mesa initially was provided to the Court. However, Defendant Rita J. 

Duarte was incorrectly identified as Non-Party Rita S. Duarte by counsel. Compounding 

the error, Defendant Rita J. Duarte received a lateral transfer to Tucson prior to USMS 

attempting service at her correct business address. When service was initially attempted 

at Defendant Rita J. Duarte’s correct business address but under the wrong name by 

middle initial, ADOC’s Human Resources Department correctly informed USMS that 

“Rita S. Duarte” was no longer in ADOC’s employ. Non-Party Rita S. Duarte, in fact, 

did resign. The “Rita Duarte” at the business address where the USMS first attempted 

service was actually Defendant Rita J. Duarte who had, by that time, relocated to Tucson. 

All additional information requested and received by the Court was for Non-Party Rita S. 

Duarte, the wrong Duarte for purposes of this litigation.

Defendants’ explanation for the confusion is human error. Rita S. Duarte resigned 

at approximately the same time that Defendant Rita J. Duarte was being laterally 

transferred to Tucson. Neither the Attorney General nor the ADOC caught the mistake of 

fact. The Duarte signatures on documents reviewed by Plaintiff appear different because 

they are different. Therefore, Defendants urge the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

several reasons: (1) Rule 11 was not violated; (2) Rule 37 was not violated; and (3) Rule 

60 provides relief.

In his Reply, Plaintiff sets forth the procedural history of the case and urges the 

Court to find that defense counsel was at all times aware that Defendant Rita J. Duarte 

- 4 -

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 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

was an ADOC employee, but purposefully failed to provide her location to the Court. 

Plaintiff suggests that defense counsel’s conduct is unethical and a fraud on the Court.

Rule 11(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that the Court may impose sanctions on a 

party or counsel who, “. . . after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond . . .,” 

violates Rule 11(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires an attorney to 

certify that what he signs, files, submits or advocates to the Court is “to the best of [his] 

knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances” not presented for an “improper purpose” and “have evidentiary support . . 

. .”

Based upon all the information presented, the undersigned finds that the conduct 

of Defendants and their counsel did not violate Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. Counsel 

explained to the Court’s satisfaction a mistake of fact which was compounded by human 

error. There is no evidence that the mistake was maliciously intended. In addition, a 

remedy at law exists to correct the mistake, which Plaintiff does not address but 

Defendants readily offered. Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) or (6), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court 

may vacate its order dismissing Defendant Rita J. Duarte without prejudice (Doc. 134) 

for either mistake, excusable neglect, or any other reason justifying relief, if the Court’s 

order were deemed a final order. Pursuant to Rule 60(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court may 

“correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one 

is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Id.

In this case, a mistake was made by defense counsel and compounded by 

Defendants’ Human Resources personnel. This human error eventually resulted in an 

order dismissing without prejudice Defendant Rita J. Duarte. Good cause has been 

shown to correct the mistake, vacate the Court’s order, reinstate the case as to Defendant 

Rita J. Duarte, and proceed with the litigation. The mistake made regarding Defendant 

Rita J. Duarte’s name and address in this situation is readily rectified. The Court’s order 

was based upon incorrect information which has now been corrected and provided. 

Defendants have no objection to reinstating the case as to Defendant Rita J. Duarte. 

- 5 -

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 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

Justice so requires. Defendants’ request for their own sanctions against Plaintiff should 

be denied.

Finally, there is no basis to find a violation of Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants

promptly have provided, albeit incorrectly, all information sought as to Defendant Rita J.

Duarte’s location.

RECOMMENDATIONS

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

(Doc. 191).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Defendants’ request to 

sanction Plaintiff’s counsel (Doc. 192).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court vacate its Order (Doc. 134) 

of March 12, 2014 and reinstate the case as to Defendant Rita J. Duarte.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order defense counsel to 

provide to the Court within three business days of this Order the current, correct address 

for Defendant Rita J. Duarte. Alternatively, defense counsel may file a Notice Accepting 

Service of Process on behalf of Defendant Rita J. Duarte.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order the Clerk of Court to 

provide Defendant Duarte’s address to USMS with a Service Packet including this Order, 

a copy of the Marshals Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit 

& Request for Waiver of Service of Summons form for Defendant Duarte.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court extend the time for service 

of process of Defendant Duarte for 60 days.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court permit additional, limited 

discovery regarding Defendant Rita J. Duarte by extending the discovery deadlines for 60 

days from the date an Answer or other responsive motion is filed by Defendant Rita J.

Duarte.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

- 6 -

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 6 of 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 

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(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., 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. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen 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 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. See, Robbins v. Carey, 481 

F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

Dated this 20th day of March, 2015. 

- 7 - 

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 194 Filed 03/23/15 Page 7 of 7