Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325-5/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Gerald Eldridge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JD Schroeder, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01325-PHX-DGC (ESW)

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s untitled motion (Doc. 34) filed on June 25, 

2015 and Motion to Compel (Doc. 36) filed on August 17, 2015. The motions are 

deemed submitted for decision as no defendant has been served. 

 Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman 

in Florence, Arizona. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 21) which alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(A)(a), the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and ordered 

Defendant Schroeder to answer or otherwise respond by motion (Doc. 29). The United 

States Marshal unsuccessfully attempted service (Doc. 33) on Defendant Schroeder at a 

last known address filed under seal by the Attorney General (Doc. 26). Defendant 

Schroeder is no longer employed at the Department of Corrections, and he has moved 

from the residence listed as his last known address. 

 Plaintiff requests a variety of documents regarding Defendant Schroeder with the 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 37 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

intention of locating him for service of process. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff 

an extension of time to complete service and will permit the Plaintiff to conduct 

reasonable discovery limited to ascertaining the requisite service information for 

Defendant Schroeder, specifically Defendant Schroeder’s current address. The Marshal’s 

inability to effect service on Plaintiff’s behalf is good cause for an extension of time to 

complete service of process. Pruett v. Blanford, 912 F.2d 270, 276 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff may obtain Defendant Schroeder’s address through subpoenas. The Court will 

provide Plaintiff with five subpoenas duces tecum which he may use to obtain the address 

information. In view of the foregoing, the Court will deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Compel (Doc. 36) and untitled motion (Doc. 34). 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 36) and untitled 

motion (Doc. 34). 

IT IS ORDERED extending time to effect service of process to ninety (90) days 

from the date of filing of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue and send to Plaintiff five subpoenas 

duces tecum in blank. 

 2. Plaintiff shall complete the subpoenas duces tecum requesting documents that 

would contain a current address for Defendant Schroeder and return the subpoenas duces 

tecum to the Clerk of Court on or before October 13, 2015. 

 3. Upon receipt of the completed subpoenas, the Clerk of Court is directed to 

forward them to the U.S. Marshal for service. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff must complete the subpoenas such that the documents requested are 

returned to the Court, not to Plaintiff. 

 2. Upon receipt of the documents, the Clerk of Court is directed to file the 

documents containing the address of Defendant Schroeder under seal. 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 37 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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. Upon receipt of the address of Defendant Schroeder, the Clerk of Court is 

directed to complete a service packet and forward it to the United States Marshal for 

service. 

 4. Service shall be made within ninety (90) days of the date of this order at 

Government expense by the United States Marshal or his authorized representative 

pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to accomplish 

service within this time period may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to 

serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

 5. Defendant has twenty (20) days from the date of service within which to 

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

 Dated this 15th day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 37 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3