Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179-9/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

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against multiple

Defendants on July 22, 2005. Dkt. #1. Many Defendants have not been served as required

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As explained below, the Court will dismiss the

action without prejudice as to all remaining Defendants except Defendants Postmaster

General John Potter, Eugene Almer, Edna Benware, and Olga Carlson.

I. Background.

Plaintiff was employed by the United States Postal Service as a mail handler at the

Phoenix Processing and Distribution Center. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, among other

things, civil rights violations and state law tort claims for wrongful termination, libel, slander,

defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff filed the

complaint against the following Defendants: United States Postal Service (“USPS”),

Postmaster General John Potter, Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”),

National Postal Mailhandlers Union (“NPMHU”), Jeff Bedatsky, John Seward, Debbie

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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 -

Cooper, Rose Flaherty, LaValerie Footracer, William Travis, Donna Woo-Quintana,

Gary Rice, David Dilletoso, Emmet Haynes, Hiram Johnson, Denise Gillanders, Al Iniguez,

Charles Davis, H.W. Garrison, Stephanie Glass, Rosalie Banasiak, Eugene Almer,

Olga Carlson, Ann Pype, Edna Benware, Karen McDaniel, Virginia Brown, Barbara

Roberson, Lerene Wiley, Robert Hemphill, Regina Beckhum, Rodney Aurrich, Lincoln

Tyson, Connie Mayorga, Suzanne Hastings, George Kintscher, Scharlene Kintscher, Timothy

Felton, Susan Jackson, Elaine Cauley, Nancy Howe, and H. Mike Martinez. Id. at 1. The

Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants NPMHU, Banasiak, Tyson, and

Mayorga. Dkt. ##47, 154, 163.

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to effect service on November 22,

2005. Dkt. #21. The Court granted the motion and gave Plaintiff until January 20, 2006 to

complete service in this case. Dkt. #25. 

 On January 18, 2006, Plaintiff sought entry of default against the Defendants who

had not responded to his complaint. Dkt. ##27-32, 33-34. The Court denied the motions

because Plaintiff had failed to provide proof of service as required by Rule 55 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #42.

On August 28, 2006, Plaintiff again filed a motion for entry of default against the

Defendants who had not responded. Dkt. #64. The Court denied the motion because

Plaintiff had not properly served Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause pursuant to Rule 4(m) as to why

the unserved Defendants should not be dismissed from the action. Dkt. #71. In response,

Plaintiff asserted that he had misinterpreted the service of process rules and that he had been

advised by the Clerk of Court that Defendants would be served by the United States Marshal

if they did not accept Plaintiff’s request for waivers. Dkt. #74. Despite this assertion,

Plaintiff apparently had never contacted the Marshal or provided service addresses for the

numerous Defendants.

In an order issued on November 29, 2006, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s failure

to effect service likely was based on his misunderstanding, as a pro se litigant, that service

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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

- 3 -

would be made by the Marshal without further action on his part. Dkt. #88 at 3. Thus, even

though the case had been pending for more than one year without service, the Court granted

Plaintiff an additional 60 days to effect service. The Court specifically warned Plaintiff that

Defendants would be dismissed from the action if they were not served by January 29, 2007.

Id. at 6. The Court also stated: “Plaintiff is cautioned that service in this case is long

overdue and the Court will not be inclined to grant additional extensions. This litigation has

been pending for well over one year and must move forward to a conclusion.” Id. at 3-4. 

Plaintiff filed a request for service by a the Marshal on December 8, 2006. Dkt. #89.

The Court granted the motion and directed Plaintiff to promptly provide the Marshal with the

addresses of the Defendants he wished to have served. Dkt. #92. On December 28, 2006,

Plaintiff informed the Marshals Service that all Defendants named in his complaint needed

to be served except for NPMHU, Banasiak, Tyson, and Mayorga. Dkt. #95. Plaintiff

subsequently completed service of process forms for all unserved Defendants except USPS,

ADES, and Stephanie Glass. Dkt. ##111-12, 114, 118-26, 128-50.

Deputy Marshals attempted to serve Defendants in January 2007. The Marshals

returned unexecuted summonses and service forms as to all Defendants except Eugene Almer

and Postmaster General Potter. Dkt. ##114, 150. The unexecuted summonses have expired.

The United States has filed a notice asserting that service of process has not been

completed as required by Rule 4. Dkt. #166. The United States notes that Plaintiff has filed

three previous unsuccessful lawsuits against many of the Defendants in this case regarding

his prior employment with the USPS. Id. at 2. See Haywood v. USPS, CV-02-1236-PHXLOA (D. Ariz); Haywood v. Potter, CV-02-1738-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz); Haywood v. Tyson,

CV2004-010887 (Maricopa County Superior Ct.). Plaintiff contends in his response that all

Defendants have been properly served. Dkt. #168.

II. Discussion.

Rule 4(m) provides that if a defendant is not served within 120 days after the filing

of the complaint, the court, absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve, shall dismiss

the action without prejudice as to the unserved defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Ninth

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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 -

Circuit has made clear that a “pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely

on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint[.]” Puett v. Blandford, 912

F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). “So long as the [plaintiff] has furnished the information

necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service ‘is automatically

good cause within the meaning of Rule 4[(m)].’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th

Cir. 1994) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472

(1995).

A. Postmaster General Potter.

Service on an officer of the United States sued in an official capacity is effected by

sending copies of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the officer

and by serving the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)(A). In this case, the Marshals

Service served Postmaster General Potter via certified mail. Dkt. #150. The United States

contends that service on the Postmaster General is insufficient without service on the U.S.

Attorney. Dkt. #166 at 5.

“Rule 4(i) sets out, with precision and using language that should be clear to any

nonlawyer as well as to any lawyer, the method for obtaining service on the United States[.]”

Clark v. Runyon, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1042 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Service on the United States

is effected by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to the U.S. Attorney for the

district in which the action is brought and the Attorney General of the United States. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). The U.S. Attorney may be served (1) by delivering copies of the summons

and complaint to the U.S. Attorney or to an assistant U.S. attorney or clerical employee

designated by the U.S. Attorney or (2) by sending copies of the summons and complaint by

registered or certified mail to the civil process clerk at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A). The Attorney General may be served by sending him copies of the

summons and complaint by registered or certified mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(B).

The record in this case does not show that either the U.S. Attorney for the District of

Arizona or the Attorney General of the United States has been served as required. The

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m) state that service deadlines should be extended “to

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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 -

correct oversights in compliance with the requirements of multiple service in actions against

the United States or its officers[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 1993 Amendments. The Notes

further state the district court should “take care to protect pro se plaintiffs from consequences

of confusion or delay attending the resolution of an in forma pauperis [pleading].” Id. The

Court will exercise its discretion under Rule 4(m) and direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the

United States, via service on the U.S. Attorney and Attorney General, by June 11, 2007. See

Shore v. Henderson, 168 F. Supp. 2d 428, 431-32 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (extending the deadline

to serve the U.S. Attorney and Attorney General where the Postmaster General had been

properly served via certified mail) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) advisory committee notes);

Boucher v. Potter, No. 1:04CV1541, 2005 WL 1183148, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2005)

(extending the time to serve the Attorney General where the extra time saved the plaintiff

“from the hazard of losing a substantive right because of the failure to comply with the

requirements of multiple service under Rule 4(i)”).

B. Eugene Almer.

Plaintiff provided a medical office address on the service form for Defendant Almer.

Dkt. #114. A Deputy Marshal served Defendant Almer by delivering copies of the summons

and complaint to his receptionist, Diane Ayala. Id. The United States contends that the

service form “on its face shows service on an office employee which is insufficient unless

it was authorized by Dr. Almer[.]” Dkt. #166 at 4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). The Court

cannot determine from the face of the service form whether Ms. Ayala was authorized to

accept service on Dr. Almer’s behalf. Dr. Almer has not asserted insufficiency of service of

process as a defense to the claims against him. Because the summons and service form were

returned executed, the Court will not dismiss Dr. Almer at this stage of the litigation.

C. Edna Benware and Olga Carlson.

Plaintiff provided a residential address on the service form for Defendant Benware.

Dkt. #140. A Deputy Marshal attempted to serve Benware at her residence on January 24,

2007, but Benware was not home. Id. A person performing maintenance work at the

residence informed the Deputy that Benware would back in town on January 29, 2007, the

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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

- 6 -

same day the summons expired. Id. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff provided the information

necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service on Defendant Benware, but the Marshals

Service simply did not have time to serve Benware prior to the expiration of the summons.

Plaintiff also provided a residential address on the service form for Defendant Carlson.

Dkt. #142. On January 26, 2007, a Deputy Marshall spoke to Carlson at her residence but

did not serve her because she requested that the summons and complaint be forwarded to the

USPS legal department. Id. The service form was returned unexecuted on February 1, 2007.

Id. Plaintiff provided the information necessary for the Marshals Service to serve Defendant

Carlson. Service on an individual may be effected by delivering copies of the summons and

complaint to the individual personally. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Carlson could have been

served personally when the U.S. marshal spoke to her on January 26, 2007.

A plaintiff should not be penalized for failure to effect service where the Marshal did

not comply with Rule 4 or simply did not have time to serve a defendant. Puett, 912 F.2d

at 275; see McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 1992) (reversing dismissal of

unserved defendant where the plaintiff had misspelled the defendant’s name but had provided

other information sufficient for the marshal to effect service), overruled on other grounds by

WMX Techs., Inc. v Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant

Plaintiff an additional 30 days to serve Defendants Benware and Carlson. If Plaintiff wishes

to have the Marshal serve these Defendants, he shall promptly inform the Marshals Service.

Plaintiff is warned that if Defendants Benware and Carlson are not served by June 11, 2007,

the Court will dismiss them from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m).

D. Barbara Roberson, Al Iniguez, and Stephanie Glass.

Defendants Roberson and Iniguez were not served due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide

the Marshals Service with their addresses. Dkt. ## 111-12. Plaintiff did not provide the

Marshals Service with a summons and service form for Defendant Glass. Plaintiff has not

shown good cause for the failure to serve these Defendants by the January 29, 2007 deadline.

The Court will dismiss the Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m). See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an unserved

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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 -

defendant where the plaintiff did not show that he had provided the marshal with sufficient

information to serve the defendant or that he had in fact requested that the defendant be

served). 

E. The Other Individual Defendants.

Plaintiff has asserted state law tort claims for libel, slander, defamation, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff also has asserted civil rights

claims, including sexual harassment and retaliation. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the tortious

activities and civil rights violations were not within the scope of official duties. Id. at 3.

While Plaintiff’s claims are not artfully pled, it appears that Plaintiff is suing his former

coworkers and other USPS employees in their individual capacities. 

Rule 4(e) prescribes the manner for serving a person sued in an individual capacity.

Service is effected by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to the individual

personally or to an agent authorized to receive service on the individual’s behalf or by

leaving copies of the summons and complaint at the individual’s dwelling house or usual

place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2).

Plaintiff provided only a USPS office address for the following Defendants:

Bedatsky, Seward, Cooper, Flaherty, Footracer, Travis, Woo-Quintana, Rice, Dilletoso,

Haynes, Johnson, Gillanders, Davis, Garrison, Pype, McDaniel, Brown, Wiley, Hemphill,

Beckhum, Aurrich, Hastings, Felton, Jackson, Cauley, Howe, Martinez, George Kintscher,

and Scharlene Kintscher. Dkt. ##118-39, 141, 143-49. A Deputy Marshal attempted to serve

these Defendants on January 24 and 31, 2007. Id. The Deputy was not able to serve the

Defendants personally at the USPS office location and no USPS official was authorized to

accept service on the Defendants’ behalf. Id. The Deputy was not able to serve the

Defendants at their homes or usual places of abode because Plaintiff provided no home

addresses on the service forms. Id.

Plaintiff has not shown that he provided the Marshals Service with the information

necessary to effect service. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise shown good cause for his failure to

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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 -

serve the Defendants by the January 29, 2007 deadline. The Court accordingly will dismiss

the Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m). See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. In reaching this

conclusion, the Court notes that Plaintiff has had more than one year to complete service of

process. Plaintiff received a specific warning that Defendants would be dismissed if not

served properly by January 29, 2007, and yet failed to provide addresses where service could

occur. The Court also notes that Plaintiff is not a novice litigator. He has filed at least three

previous lawsuits against many of these same Defendants on the same claims. The Court

concludes that additional time for service of these Defendants is not warranted. 

F. Defendants USPS and ADES.

Plaintiff did not provide the Marshals Service with a summons and service form for

Defendant USPS. Plaintiff has not attempted to serve Defendant ADES since the filing of

the complaint. The Court will dismiss these Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The U.S. Marshal shall, by June 11, 2007, complete service of process on

Defendant Postmaster General John Potter by serving the U.S. Attorney for the District of

Arizona and the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to Rule 4(i) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Plaintiff shall have until June 11, 2007 to serve process on Defendants Edna

Benware and Olga Carlson. If Plaintiff wishes to have the U.S. Marshal serve these

Defendants, he shall promptly inform the Marshals Service (602-382-8767). Plaintiff also

shall complete a summons and service form for each Defendant and shall provide the

completed documents to the Marshals Service. If Defendants Benware and Carlson are not

served by June 11, 2007, either by a U.S. marshal or otherwise, the Court will dismiss them

from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m).

3. The action is dismissed without prejudice as to the following Defendants:

United States Postal Service, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Jeff Bedatsky,

John Seward, Debbie Cooper, Rose Flaherty, LaValerie Footracer, William Travis,

Donna Woo-Quintana, Gary Rice, David Dilletoso, Emmet Haynes, Hiram Johnson,

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 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 -

Denise Gillanders, Al Iniguez, Charles Davis, H.W. Garrison, Stephanie Glass, Ann Pype,

Karen McDaniel, Virginia Brown, Barbara Roberson, Lerene Wiley, Robert Hemphill,

Regina Beckhum, Rodney Aurrich, Suzanne Hastings, George Kintscher, Scharlene

Kintscher, Timothy Felton, Susan Jackson, Elaine Cauley, Nancy Howe, and

H. Mike Martinez.

4. The Clerk is directed to provide the Marshals Service with a copy of this Order

as well as a copy of the complaint in this matter (Dkt. #1).

DATED this 10th day of May, 2007.

cc: USM

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 170 Filed 05/11/07 Page 9 of 9