Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02456/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02456-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ERINEO CANO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-02456 PHX ROS (MEA)

) 

NICOLE TAYLOR, SUSAN KAZ, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MEREDITH MITSIFER, JOHN DOE )

MERTENS, DORA SCHRIRO, )

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on

referral from the District Judge, and the determination of the

Magistrate Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion at Docket No.

19 to amend his complaint, his motion for leave to supplement

his proposed amended complaint, his motion asking the Court to

inform him as to the status of his case and his motion asking

the Court to extend the time allowed to effect service on

Defendants.

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 9
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- 

I Procedural background

Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated by the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint on

December 4, 2007. On February 7, 2008, the Court, noting

Plaintiff has been a party to at least forty cases filed in

the Court, ordered Defendants Taylor, Kaz, Mitsifer and

Mertens to answer part of Count I of the complaint. See

Docket No. 4. These defendants were ordered to answer

Plaintiff’s claim that they denied him mental health treatment

while he was incarcerated at the Special Management Unit of

the Florence prison. Id. The Court’s order stated:

The United States Marshal must notify

Defendants of the commencement of this

action and request waiver of service of the

summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

notice to Defendants must include a copy of

this Order. The Marshal must immediately

file requests for waivers that were

returned as undeliverable and waivers of

service of the summons. If a waiver of

service of summons is not returned by a

Defendant within 30 days from the date the

request for waiver was sent by the Marshal,

the Marshal must: 

 (a) personally serve copies of the

Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 

 (b) within 10 days after personal

service is effected, file the return of

service for Defendant, along with evidence

of the attempt to secure a waiver of

service of the summons and of the costs

subsequently incurred in effecting service

upon Defendant. The costs of service must

be enumerated on the return of service form

(USM-285) and must include the costs

incurred by the Marshal for photocopying

additional copies of the Summons,

Complaint, or this Order and for preparing

new process receipt and return forms

(USM-285), if required. Costs of service

will be taxed against the personally served

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 9
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

 The address given by Plaintiff for all defendants was the Arizona

Department of Corrections offices on West Jefferson in Phoenix, Arizona.

The civil docket in this matter indicates the envelopes containing service

were marked “return to sender”. 

-3- 

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless

otherwise ordered by the Court.

Id. at 8 (emphasis added).

In the order issued February 7, 2008, Plaintiff was

warned that his failure to serve any named defendant within

the time specified by the Court, i.e., April 7, 2008, would

result in the dismissal of his claims. 

Plaintiff returned service packets to the Court for

Defendants. The United States Marshal attempted service by

mail on Defendants, which service was returned unexecuted on

Defendants Taylor, Kaz, Mitsifer, and Mertens. See Docket

Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17.1 On April 23, 2008, the undersigned

ordered the Marshal to undertake personal service on these

Defendants as required by the Court’s order of February 7,

2008, on or before May 23, 2008. See Docket No. 18. The

undersigned has been informed that the United States Marshal

will not further attempt to personally serve the named

Defendants. There is no indication in the civil docket in

this matter as of July 15, 2008, that the United States

Marshal did or did not attempt personal service on Defendants.

On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave

to Add Claims and Plaintiff lodged a proposed first amended

complaint. See Docket Nos. 19 & 20. Plaintiff has also filed

a motion to supplement his first amended complaint. See

Docket No. 22. The lodged first amended complaint names the

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 3 of 9
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

-4- 

same defendants, with the addition of naming Dora Schriro as a

defendant. The first amended complaint alleges the violation

of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by Defendants’ failure

to provide Plaintiff with adequate mental health care while

incarcerated at the Special Management Units of the Arizona

Department of Corrections’ prison. Plaintiff also asserts his

First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion was

violated by individuals identified as Henderson, Kelley,

Childs, “Richard Row, Joe Blow and Schriro.” Plaintiff also

asserts he has been denied his right to access the courts. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion for an

extension of the time allowed Plaintiff to serve Defendants

with the original complaint and a motion seeking to be

enlightened about the status of his case. See Docket No. 21 &

Docket No. 23. Plaintiff contends Defendants are willfully

evading service.

II Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended

complaint

Rule 15(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of

course: (A) before being served with a responsive pleading...”

No responsive pleading has been served and, accordingly, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that Plaintiff be

allowed to amend his pleadings by filing his first amended

complaint. 

However, Count II and Count III of the first amended

complaint state claims completely separate from the claim the

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 4 of 9
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

-5- 

defendants were ordered to answer, and the first amended

complaint does not name as defendants the individuals

specified in the body of the complaint with regard to Count II

and Count III, i.e., Plaintiff’s free exercise and access to

the courts claims. The undersigned suggests that screening of

the amended complaint would potentially result in the

dismissal of Count II and Count III of the amended complaint

without prejudice so that Plaintiff could initiate a separate

lawsuit predicated on these claims which involve different

events and different defendants than those involved in this

matter. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes Plaintiff’s

motion to “add claims” at Docket No. 19 and Plaintiff’s motion

to “supplement” his amended complaint at Docket No. 22 be

denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the time

allowed to serve Defendants with the original complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if

a defendant is not served within [the time

allowed], the court--on motion or on its

own after notice to the plaintiff--must

dismiss the action without prejudice

against that defendant or order that

service be made within a specified time.

But if the plaintiff shows good cause for

the failure, the court must extend the time

for service for an appropriate period.

Dismissal of a party is appropriate where a plaintiff

fails to show good cause for delays in service. See Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding

dismissal where no showing of good cause for delay in

service). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that the United

States Marshal’s failure to effect service for a prisoner

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 5 of 9
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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) provides that the officers of the court

“shall issue and serve all process” when a plaintiff is

proceeding in forma pauperis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) dovetails

with § 1915(c) by providing that the court must appoint a United

States Marshal to serve plaintiff’s process “when the plaintiff

is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915.” Together, Rule 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) stand for

the proposition that when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis the court is obligated to issue plaintiff’s process to

a United States Marshal who must in turn effectuate service upon

the defendants, thereby relieving a plaintiff of the burden to

serve process once reasonable steps have been taken to identify

for the court the defendants named in the complaint. []

Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219-20 (6th Cir. 1996).

-6- 

proceeding in forma pauperis constitutes “good cause.” See

Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)(“we hold

that an incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma

pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service

of the summons and complaint, and, having provided the

necessary information to help effectuate service, plaintiff

should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed

for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the

court clerk has failed to perform the duties required of each

of them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) and Rule 4 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding

in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal,

upon order of the court, shall serve the

summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(c)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for

service of the summons and complaint and

... should not be penalized by having his

action dismissed for failure to effect

service where the U.S. Marshal or the court

clerk has failed to perform his duties.’”

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422.2 “So long as the prisoner has

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 6 of 9
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

-7- 

furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant,

the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good

cause ....’” Id. However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to

provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information

to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court may,

sua sponte, dismiss the unserved defendants. Id., 14 F.3d at

1421-22.

Plaintiff has identified Defendants Taylor, Kaz,

Mitsifer and Mertens as employees of the Arizona Department of

Corrections who provide mental health services at the Special

Management Units of the Arizona Department of Corrections

prison at Florence, Arizona. There is no indication as to why

attempts to serve these defendants at the ADOC office in

Phoenix were unsuccessful and, as noted, the United States

Marshal has not attempted personal service on these

defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff has, pursuant to Walker,

shown good cause for not timely serving the defendants.

However, the filing of an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint and Plaintiff must now serve

the amended complaint on Defendants. Accordingly, the motion

for an extension of the time allowed to serve the original

complaint is moot.

III Conclusion

To the extent this order has not informed Plaintiff

as to the status of his case, the undersigned concludes

Plaintiff’s motion at Docket No. 23 should be denied.

Additionally, the undersigned notes Plaintiff is

allowed to amend his complaint once prior to the service of a

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 7 of 9
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

-8- 

responsive pleading. Accordingly, the governing complaint in

this matter is now the First Amended Complaint at Docket No.

20. However, because Plaintiff’s motion for leave to add

claims and Plaintiff’s motion to supplement seek to add claims

and defendants which would likely be dismissed from this

matter upon the screening of the complaint, the undersigned

concludes Plaintiff’s motion to add claims at Docket No. 19

and Plaintiff’s motion to supplement at Docket No. 22 should

be denied as futile. 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions at Docket

No. 19 and 22 should be denied and that the Court should order

the screening of the First Amended Complaint at Docket No. 20.

If the Court orders service of the First Amended Complaint on

Defendants, the undersigned suggests that the Court specify

the steps it expects the United States Marshal to undertake to

serve Defendants at the address specified by Plaintiff, or

whether the Marshal must attempt personal service on

Defendants at addresses where mailed requests for waivers of

service have been unsuccessful. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at

Docket No. 21 be denied as moot.

This recommendation is not an order that is

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the

district court’s judgment. 

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 8 of 9
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

-9- 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date

of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure

to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings

of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 14th day of July, 2008.

 

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 25 Filed 07/16/08 Page 9 of 9