Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02175/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02175-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

Brian Hopson,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U. S. Dept. of Justice, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2175-PHX-LOA

NOTICE

This matter arises upon review of the file. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on

September 12, 2006. (docket # 1) On September 29, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff's

request for in forma pauperis status and authorized service of process by the USMS.

Plaintiff is hereby advised that even though ordered that the USMS shall serve

the Complaint, Plaintiff has the ultimate obligation to ensure service of process within 120

days of the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint, i.e., January 10, 2007. Boudette v. Barnette, 923

F.2d 754, 756-57 (9th Cir.1991).

Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m) “if service of the summons and complaint is not

made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon

motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without

prejudice as to that defendant. . . .” Rule 4(m) (emphasis added) Thus, the Court may

dismiss an action where a plaintiff fails to show "good cause" for failing to serve the

summons and complaint within the 120 day period. Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820

F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1987); In re Sheehan, 2001 WL 682453 (9th Cir. 2001). Ignorance of the

existence of the 120 day rule does not constitute "good cause." Townsel, 820 F.2d at 320. The

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 13 Filed 10/25/06 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 -

Townsel court expressly noted that the 120 day rule "force[s] parties . . . to be diligent in

prosecuting their causes of action." Id. Therefore, the court held that "to hold that complete

ignorance of the rule . . . constitutes good cause for untimely service would allow the good

cause exception to swallow the rule." Id.

Plaintiff should exercise due diligence in communicating the USMS to ensure

it has the necessary information, including correct current addresses, to serve defendants.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 13 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2