Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PATRICK NEAL BRADBERRY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 05-01336 PHX JAT (MEA)

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

DORA B. SCHRIRO, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

___________________________ )

This matter was remanded from the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals on January 23, 2008. On August 26, 2009, the Court

granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to

dismiss, and dismissed several counts and some Defendants from

this matter. 

The order on the motion to dismiss provided that some

of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Garvin, Defendant

Savage, Defendant Tucker, Defendant Lewis, Defendant Glass, and

Defendant Atkins have survived, although these Defendants have

not been served. The service of Defendants in this matter has

been a lengthy, complicated, and involved process. The

Magistrate Judge notes that Defendants and the United States

Marshal have severely complicated and indeed thwarted the

Magistrate Judge’s attempts to have all named Defendants in this

matter served pursuant to Judge Teilborg’s orders.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 254 Filed 11/06/09 Page 1 of 6
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-

In an order filed August 13, 2008, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to return service packets sent to him on July 2, 2008,

for all 56 defendants, no later than August 29, 2008. The Court

further ordered Defendant Schriro to submit the last known

residential address for each defendant, whether a current

employee of the ADOC or not, to the Court under seal, on or

before September 5, 2008. The Magistrate Judge further ordered

the Clerk of the Court to forward the sealed addresses and the

completed service packets to the United States Marshal for

personal service on each Defendant. The Magistrate Judge

included this requirement because a great deal of time

litigating this matter has been wasted by the attempts to obtain

waiver of service on Defendants. Upon receipt of the service

packets, the Court ordered the Marshal to “attempt PERSONAL

service on each of the 56 named defendants by physically going

to each location specified under seal, on or before October 10,

2008.” The Magistrate Judge further ordered the Marshal “that

they may not attempt to complete service by waiver because

waivers for all 56 of these defendants have already been

rejected,” and also ordered that the United States Marshal shall

keep time records for the time spend in affecting personal

service in this matter so that any defendant who previously

refused to waive service at his or her work address can be

personally charged for the cost of service. See Fed. R. Civ.

Pro. 4(d)(2) (2009).

Plaintiff returned service packets to the Court and

Defendant Schriro filed, under seal, the residential addresses

of forty of the defendants, including Defendants Savage and

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 254 Filed 11/06/09 Page 2 of 6
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-

Lewis. Defendant Schriro averred she was unable to identify and

provide an address for Defendant Glass, and that she does not

have a residential address for Defendant Atkins or Garvin.

Defendant Schriro further represented to the Court that

Defendant Tucker and Defendant Pinkstaff are deceased.

On September 4, 2008, Defendant Schriro asked the

Court to revise its previous order to allow the “United States

Marshal to be permitted to attempt service by waiver for the

remaining Defendants, and that the remaining Defendants not be

personally charged for the cost of service.” On September 24,

2008, the motion at Docket No. 108 was granted insofar as

Defendant Schriro moved the Court to relieve the Marshal of the

obligation to effect personal service on, inter alia, Defendants

Savage and Lewis at their residences. The Court ordered that

the Marshal could seek waiver of service from these defendants

by mailing requests for waiver of service and the appropriate

documents to these defendants at their home addresses.

Defendant Savage

On October 16, 2008, a waiver of service addressed to

Defendant Savage at her home address was returned unexecuted as

there was no mail receptacle at the address. See Docket No.

180. The Marshal then sent a waiver of service to Defendant

Savage’s post office box, which was returned as undeliverable.

See id. There is no indication in the record that the Marshal

has attempted personal service on Defendant Savage at the

address where there was no mail receptacle, notwithstanding the

Court’s repeated attempts to have the Marshal personally serve

Defendant Savage and the Magistrate’s willingness to waive this

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 254 Filed 11/06/09 Page 3 of 6
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-

requirement only upon Defendant’s motion and reassurance that

diligent efforts were being expended to serve all Defendants and

that going to the effort of personal service was not necessary.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court order the

United States Marshal to personally serve Defendant Savage at

her home within one month of the date the Court issues its order

or face sanctions by the Court. 

Defendant Rick Lewis

Similar to the attempts to have Defendant Savage waive

service, the last address of Defendant Rick Lewis was disclosed

under seal. Service was returned unexecuted as to Defendant

Lewis on December 11, 2008, with the notation “no physical

address/no signed waiver”. See Docket No. 164. There is no

indication in the record that the Marshal has attempted personal

service on Defendant Lewis at the address disclosed under seal.

No further attempts were made to serve this defendant,

notwithstanding the Court’s repeated attempts to have the

Marshal personally serve Defendant Lewis and the Magistrate’s

willingness to waive this requirement only upon Defendant’s

motion and reassurance that diligent efforts were being expended

to serve all Defendants and that going to the effort of personal

service was not necessary. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge

recommends the Court order the United States Marshal to

personally serve Defendant Lewis at the address disclosed under

seal within one month of the date the Court issues its order or

face sanctions by the Court.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 254 Filed 11/06/09 Page 4 of 6
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 Glass, Atkins, Garvin and Tucker

The Court allowed Plaintiff until October 24, 2008,

to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed as against

Defendants Glass, Atkins, Garvin, and Tucker. Plaintiff

responded to the order to show cause on or about October 22,

2008. Plaintiff states he “is at a loss why defendant Garvin

was named by the Court as the ADOC and counsel do not name him

as unable to locate.” Plaintiff further allows Defendant Tucker

is “deceased and Plaintiff has no way to locate means to serve

the deceased.” Plaintiff states that he did not intend to

prosecute claims against Defendant Glass and Defendant Atkins.

Defendant Garvin

Plaintiff returned a service packet for Defendant

Garvin to court on August 25, 2008. The service packet was not

forwarded to the Marshal because a motion regarding this

Defendant’s involvement was pending before the Court. Because

Defendant Garvin remains a defendant ordered to answer

Plaintiff’s existing claims, the Magistrate Judge recommends

that the Marshal be ordered to effect personal service on

Defendant Garvin pursuant to the service packet returned to the

Court on August 25, 2008.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants Tucker, Glass, and

Atkins be dismissed as defendants in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order the

United States Marshal to proceed with personal service on

Defendants Savage, Lewis and Garvin and that the Court specify

a date by which the Marshal must serve these Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 254 Filed 11/06/09 Page 5 of 6
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

-6-

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. 

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. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 

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. Reyna-Tapia, 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 6th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 254 Filed 11/06/09 Page 6 of 6