Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01757/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01757-5/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Carrasco Gamez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01757-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by United States 

Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine, recommending that the Court dismiss this matter for 

Plaintiff’s failure to serve the remaining Defendant in this matter. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff 

timely filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 66), so the Court reviews the issue de novo. 

Upon the review, the Court adopts the R&R in whole and will dismiss the matter for 

failure to serve. 

 In the first five pages of his nearly six page Objection, Plaintiff faithfully and 

accurately recounts the history of the inception of this action and his efforts to amend the 

complaint and to serve Defendant Gatlin. But this is unhelpful in addressing the legal 

issue upon which Judge Fine’s R&R is based—did Plaintiff exercise diligence in 

attempting to serve Defendant. And the final two paragraphs of this Objection, while 

arguing for more time, do not give the Court cause to further extend the deadline. 

Plaintiff merely states conclusorily that he complied with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, and that rule should be liberally construed in his favor. But even a rule 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 68 Filed 09/27/16 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 

liberally construed reaches a point where it can no longer be extended, and this case has 

reached such a point. 

 Plaintiff has had over three years to effect service of Defendant Gatlin. He has had 

multiple extensions, the assistance of the United States Marshal Service, and the power of 

multiple subpoenas to discern her location. Defendant Gatlin was not an employee of the 

Department of Corrections, and Plaintiff learned this after two years of trying to serve her 

as such. He obtained Defendant Gatlin’s last known address after she had moved on from 

her prior employment, and attempted to serve Defendant there, but she had moved on 

from that address due to the passage of yet more time. Plaintiff’s argument (Doc. 64) that 

he needs more time for service because service here is complex is without support. And 

in any event, he has had multiples of the time afforded by Rule 4. It is time for repose in 

this matter. 

 Also at issue is Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. 67), which the Court 

construes as a Motion for status on the above R&R. The Court acknowledges that 

Plaintiff’s Motion was commendably clear, professional in tone and entirely appropriate. 

As Plaintiff explained, his past experiences in receiving correspondence and orders late 

or not at all, coupled with the delay since the filing of the R&R and his Objections 

thereto, understandably led Plaintiff to question whether he had missed a ruling on the 

R&R and thus whether time might be running on other deadlines. This Court’s ruling on 

the R&R constitutes the case status information Plaintiff sought in his Motion to Clarify. 

The Court thus will deny the Motion as moot. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 65) in whole. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter for failure to serve process. 

The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 68 Filed 09/27/16 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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification 

(Doc. 67), which the Court deems a Motion for Status. 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 68 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 3