Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02557/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02557-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Henry Armijo, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Edwin Nickerson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-02557-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Status of the Service of 

Defendant Glover (Doc. 69). On May 15, 2020, the Court provided the status of service 

on Defendant Glover and ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed as to Defendants Glover and Randy Doe for failure to timely serve pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b). (Doc. 67). Plaintiff is aware of the status of service on 

Defendant Glover. The Court so informed the Plaintiff in the Court’s Order (Doc. 67).

Plaintiff now requests that this Court order the City of Mesa Attorney’s Office to 

provide Defendant Glover’s last known address under seal for service of process by the 

United States Marshal Service (“USMS”). If a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma 

pauperis has provided to the USMS sufficient information to effectuate service on a 

defendant, the USMS’ failure to effect service is “automatically good cause” to extend the 

service deadline. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sellers 

v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin 

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 70 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). But where a prisoner fails to provide the USMS with 

accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, a 

court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendant(s) is appropriate. Id.

It is not the Court’s role to assist Plaintiff in obtaining Defendant Glover’s address. 

See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the 

power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”); Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 

231 (2004) (federal “judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se 

litigants”) (italics in original); Barnes v. United States, 241 F.2d 252 (9th Cir. 1956) (noting 

pro se litigant does not have rights that a represented litigant does not have). Plaintiff’s 

request that the Court order the City of Mesa Attorney’s Office to provide Defendant 

Glover’s address under seal will be denied.

However, the Court will grant an extension of time to complete service and will 

permit Plaintiff to conduct reasonable discovery limited to ascertaining the requisite service 

information of Defendant Glover, specifically the Defendant’s current address or last 

address of record while working for the City of Mesa Police Department. The USMS’s 

inability to effect service on Plaintiff’s behalf is good cause for an extension of time to 

complete service of process. Pruett v. Blanford, 912 F. 2d 270, 276 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff may obtain the Defendant’s address through a subpoena duces tecum. The Court 

will provide Plaintiff with a blank subpoena duces tecum which he may use to obtain the 

address information for Defendant Glover from the City of Mesa Police Department. The 

Clerk of Court will file any information disclosed by the City of Mesa Police Department 

under seal and provide same to USMS for service of process.

IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Request for Status of the Service of 

Defendant Glover (Doc. 69).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court send the Plaintiff a blank

subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff shall complete the subpoena duces tecum requesting a 

document from the City of Mesa Police Department that would contain the current or last 

known address of record for Defendant Glover and return the subpoena duces tecum to the 

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 70 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Clerk of Court no later than May 28, 2020. Upon receipt of the completed subpoena duces 

tecum, the Clerk of Court is directed to forward it to the USMS for service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the time for service of process on 

Defendant Glover to August 20, 2020.

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff must complete the subpoena such that the document requested is 

returned to the Court, not to Plaintiff.

2. Upon receipt of the document, the Clerk of Court is directed to file the document 

containing the address of Defendant Glover under seal.

3. Upon receipt of the address of Defendant Glover, the Clerk of Court is directed 

to complete a service packet and forward it to the USMS for service.

4. Service shall be made within ninety days of the date of this Order at Government 

expense by the United States Marshal or his authorized representative pursuant 

to Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to accomplish 

service within this time period may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for 

failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (m).

5. Defendant has twenty (20) days from the date of service within which to answer 

or otherwise respond to the Complaint as provided by the Fed. R. Civ. P.

Dated this 21st day of May, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 70 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 3