Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Reginald Haywood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jeffrey A. Bedatsky, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2179-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #64. Plaintiff seeks the entry of default against

numerous Defendants on the ground that he has properly served them with process and they

have failed to respond. Id.

Plaintiff has not, however, properly served Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appears to believe that the mailing of requests for

waiver of service to Defendants constitutes proper service under Rule 4. See id. Service is

effectuated in this manner only if Defendants agree to waive service. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(d). Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendants have done so. The Court

accordingly will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default.

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on July 22, 2005. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff was

required to serve process on Defendants by November 19, 2005. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 71 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

On December 19, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve

Defendants and gave Plaintiff until January 20, 2006 to effectuate service. Dkt. #25 ¶ 2; see

Dkt. #21. The Court advised Plaintiff that the Court was not inclined to grant further

extensions of time to complete service. Dkt. #25 ¶ 2.

It does not appear that Plaintiff completed service on all Defendants by the

January 20, 2006 deadline. Plaintiff shall, by October 20, 2006, show good cause as to why

the unserved Defendants should not be dismissed from this action. See Dkt. #25; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m); Boudete v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1991) (“In order to avoid

dismissal for failure to [timely] serve the complaint and summons[,] . . . a plaintiff must show

‘good cause.’”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Dkt. #64) is denied.

2. Plaintiff shall show good cause as to why the unserved Defendants should not

be dismissed by October 20, 2006. 

DATED this 11th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 71 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2