Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00629/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00629-0/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

Jorge Ramirez Chavez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CCA/Eloy Detention Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-629-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

The Court dismissed this action without prejudice on February 11, 2008. Dkt. #16.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to reinstate the case. Dkt. #18. The Court will deny the motion.

A. Background.

Plaintiff is a prisoner currently confined at the Taft Correctional Institution in

California. Dkt. #14. In May 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the

Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), CCA’s Eloy Detention Center facility, and

several prison officials and medical personnel. The complaint asserted constitutional

violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Dkt. #7.

On June 18, 2007, the Court dismissed all claims except the claim against Defendant

Sells alleging constitutional violations based on insufficient medical care while Plaintiff was

incarcerated at the Eloy Detention Center. The Court directed the United States Marshal to

serve the summons and complaint on Defendant Sells and the United States Attorney for the

District of Arizona. Dkt. #8.

Case 2:06-cv-00629-DGC-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/04/08 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff completed service packets and submitted them to the Clerk on July 16, 2007.

Service was executed on the United States Attorney on July 26, 2007. Dkt. #9. Service was

returned unexecuted upon Defendant Sells on August 10, 2007, due to Plaintiff’s failure to

provide the correct address for Defendant Sells. Dkt. #10.

On August 23, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should

not be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Dkt. #13. Plaintiff filed an untimely response that did not provide any

explanation for his failure to serve Defendant Sells or for his failure to comply with the

Court’s orders. The Court accordingly dismissed the case for failure to serve pursuant to

Rule 4(m) and for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Rule 41(b). Dkt. #16.

B. Discussion.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Sells is a “federal actor” for purposes of Bivens

liability, and that service on the United States Attorney therefore constituted effective service

upon Defendant Sells. Dkt. #18. But even if the Court were to assume that Defendant Sells

was a federal actor during her employment with CCA, Plaintiff was still required to serve

Defendant Sells individually pursuant to Rule 4.

“[A] Bivens action is, by definition, against defendants in their individual and not their

official capacity.” Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 856 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 4(i) provides:

To serve a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for

an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the

United States’ behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in

an official capacity), a party must serve the United States and also serve the

officer or employee[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff has not served Defendant Sells individually as required by Rule 4(i).

“Because a Bivens action can be maintained against a defendant in his or her individual

capacity only, and not in his or her official capacity, the failure to perfect individual service

is fatal to [Plaintiff’s] Bivens action against [Defendant Sells].” Daly-Murphy v. Winston,

837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1988); see Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir.

1997) (“[E]very court of appeals that has spoken on the question has decided that defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00629-DGC-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/04/08 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 -

in Bivens actions must be served as individuals[.]”); see also Hutchinson v. United States,

677 F.2d 1322, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Without personal service in accordance with Rule 4,

the district court is without jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against a defendant.”).

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Agyeman v. CCA, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004), is misplaced.

Agyeman merely stated that to the extent the plaintiff sought recovery from individual

employees of CCA, the case had to be brought as a Bivens action. Id. at 1104. Agyeman did

not involve the issue of service of process.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate case (Dkt. #18) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00629-DGC-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 3