Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02193/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02193-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin A. Osborn,

Plaintiff

-vsIvan Bartos, et al., et al., et al.,

Defendants.

CV-08-2193-PHX-ROS (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

Failure to Timely Serve - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: 

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is 

filed, 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. 

Local Civil Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), which governs prisoner civil rights suits, provides 

that service shall be completed by the “maximum date to effect service, pursuant to Rule 

4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or sixty (60) days from filing of service order, 

whichever is later.” Filing and service of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was ordered 

on June 22, 2009 (Doc. 67). The First Amended Complaint was filed on July 2, 2009. A 

supplemental service order was filed October 19, 2009 (Doc. 96). Accordingly, service 

was due in this case at least by December 18, 2009. 

However, due to delays in discovery, in an order (Doc. 143) filed April 28, 2010, 

Plaintiff was given until June 30, 2010 to serve Defendants Unknown Parties (John Does 

and Jane Does). On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff was ordered (Doc. 184) to show cause why 

Defendants Unknown Parties should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service. 

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 280 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff responded (Doc. 214) arguing that his efforts to identify these parties had been 

hampered by the parties’ protracted discovery disputes. Those disputes were 

subsequently resolved and the time for service of any outstanding discovery responses 

passed. (See Order 12/5/11, Doc. 275.) Plaintiff had taken no action to amend to name 

these defendants or to effect service on them. Accordingly, on December 14, 2011, the 

Court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to show cause why these defendants should not be 

dismissed. (Order 12/14/11, Doc. 278.) Plaintiff has not responded. 

Application of Law to Facts - 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 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding dismissal where no showing of good cause for delay in 

service). 

At a minimum, "good cause" means excusable neglect. A plaintiff 

may also be required to show the following: (a) the party to be 

served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the 

defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be 

severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). 

Notwithstanding Rule 4(m), where "good cause does not exist, the court may in 

its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for 

service." Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3rd Cir. 1995). "[I]f 

good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a 

showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 

To determine whether a plaintiff demonstrates excusable neglect, courts use the 

test set forth in Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 394 

(1993), and Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1997). See 

Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198 (holding that plaintiff had established excusable neglect for 

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 280 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 4
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

the purposes of Rule 4(m) via the Pioneer-Briones test). The Pioneer-Briones test is as 

follows:

[T]he determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable 

one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice 

to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) 

whether the movant acted in good faith.

Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-1224 (9th Cir.2000). Here, all but 

the last factor call for a finding of no excusable neglect. 

Danger of Prejudice to Unserved Defendant - Defendants, if eventually served, 

would be brought into litigation in which all deadlines either are expired or soon will be. 

Length of Delay and Impact - Over 6 months have expired since the extended 

time for service on these defendants. To extend the time for service, and to introduce a 

new defendant would effectively mean resetting the schedule in this case. This case is 

already over three years old, and the case is nearing completion, with the extended 

discovery and motions deadlines already expired. Prejudice to the existing opposing 

parties would result from the 11th hour addition of a new defendant.

Reason for Delay - Plaintiff's fitful attempts at naming and pursuing service on 

this defendant do not demonstrate diligence, nor provide sufficient reason to explain the 

extent of the delay. 

Good faith - There appears no reason to conclude that Plaintiff has acted in bad 

faith, as opposed to simply being dilatory. 

Summary - Plaintiff has failed to show good cause or excusable neglect to justify 

an extension of time to complete service on Defendants Unknown Parties (John Does 

and Jane Does).

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 280 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 4
4

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 THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule 4(m), 

Defendants Unknown Parties (John Does and Jane Does) be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) 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 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: January 12, 2012

08-2193o Order 12 01 09 re RR re dismiss Does FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 280 Filed 01/12/12 Page 4 of 4