Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00190/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Joseph C. Holmes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Russell Barker, a Police Officer for the

City of Clinton, Tennessee, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-190-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the Cherokee County Jail in Canton, Georgia. In an

order dated June 19, 2008, the Court stated that this case would be dismissed in 10 days if

Plaintiff failed to show good cause before that date for his failure to serve the summons and

complaint. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff submitted a response to the order, which the Court received on

July 7, 2008. Dkt. #10. The Clerk dismissed the case the next day. Dkt. #9. Plaintiff has

filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. Dkt. #10.

Because Plaintiff is an inmate, he is entitled to the “prison mail box rule,” which

deems a document to be “filed on the date on which the inmate signed and delivered the

document to prison authorities for mailing.” Crockett v. Frigo, No. CV 05-4060-PHX-JAT,

2007 WL 841523, at *2 n.3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 16, 2007) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,

270-71 (1988)). Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause is dated June 27,

2008. Dkt. #10 at 2. The Court therefore concludes that the response was timely filed. See

Dkt. #6.

Case 2:08-cv-00190-DGC Document 12 Filed 08/07/08 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

1

Plaintiff also requests leave to file an amended complaint. Because Defendants have

not appeared in this action, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint as a matter of course.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

- 2 -

Plaintiff states in his response that he does not have the funds to hire a process server

and requests that service be effected by the United States Marshal. Dkt. #10 at 2. In his

motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff states that he has unsuccessfully attempted to serve

Defendants by mail and reurges his request to have the United States Marshal effect service.

Dkt. #11 at 1-2.1

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for his failure to serve process

on Defendants. The Court will grant the motion for reconsideration and allow Plaintiff an

additional 60 days to complete service upon Defendants. Because Plaintiff has been granted

in forma pauperis status (see Dkt. #4), the Court will grant his request to have service of

process effected by the United States Marshals Service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2);

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c); Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is

instructed to promptly inform the Marshals Service of the names of the specific Defendants

Plaintiff wishes to have served, along with the addresses or locations of such Defendants.

Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”). Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action

or comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #11) is granted.

2. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case.

3. Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of this order to accomplish service

upon Defendants.

Case 2:08-cv-00190-DGC Document 12 Filed 08/07/08 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 -

4. Plaintiff’s request to have service of process effected by the United States

Marshals Service is granted. Plaintiff shall promptly inform the Marshals

Service of the names of the specific Defendants Plaintiff wishes to have

served, along with the addresses or locations of such Defendants

5. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff copies of this order, the complaint

(Dkt. #1), and the Court’s Local Rules.

6. The Clerk shall terminate this case if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

cc: USMS

Case 2:08-cv-00190-DGC Document 12 Filed 08/07/08 Page 3 of 3