Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03246/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03246-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Ramon Beltran-Lugo,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

AFB Freight System, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-3246-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is ABF Freight System's (“ABF”) Motion to Dismiss

Without Prejudice (“Motion to Dismiss”) submitted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5). (Dkt.

5.) Defendant ABF alleges that Plaintiff Jose Ramon Beltran-Lugo has not timely served

ABF with a Summons in accordance with this Court's Order dated November 23, 2005.

Plaintiff has not filed a response to ABF’s Motion to Dismiss.

Under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall serve copies

of the summons and complaint on each of the defendants within one hundred and twenty

(120) days of the filing of the Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1), (m). If the service is not

made upon a defendant within 120 days, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice

as to that defendant, or may direct that service be effected within a specified time if the

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The court has taken a lenient

attitude toward pro se plaintiffs suing in forma pauperis, especially when they are

incarcerated. Under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the court has an

obligation to appoint a United States Marshall, or other officer of the court, to issue and serve

Case 2:05-cv-03246-SMM-DKD Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

all process. Furthermore, the 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m) authorize the

court to relieve in forma pauperis plaintiffs of the consequences of a dismissal even if there

is no good cause shown, in order to protect such plaintiffs from the confusion or delay of an

in forma pauperis petition.

While confined in the United States Penitentiary Victorville in Adelanto, California,

Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint seeking to recover damages from Defendant ABF as a

result of a motor vehicle accident. Although Plaintiff is incarcerated, he pre-paid the $250.00

filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, neither the in forma pauperis

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), nor the special considerations given to pro se litigants suing in

forma pauperis, apply here.

This Court's Order dated November 23, 2005 warned Plaintiff that if he did not

properly serve the Summons and Complaint on each of the Defendants within one hundred

and twenty (120) days of the filing of the complaint or within sixty (60) days of the filing of

the Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 4). Plaintiff has not

filed a notice of service in a timely manner. Nor has Plaintiff requested this Court to direct

that service be effected by a United States marshal or other person. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2).

Finally, when Defendant ABF filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5), this Court advised Plaintiff

of his obligation to timely respond to all motions and again warned Plaintiff that his failure

to respond could result in a dismissal. (Dkt. 6). Plaintiff has not filed a response to

Defendant ABF's Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly,

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:05-cv-03246-SMM-DKD Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant ABF Freight System's Motion

to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Dkt. 5.). The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03246-SMM-DKD Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3