Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01428/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01428-4/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

JOSHUA DEROCHE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-01428 PHX MHM (MEA)

)

LINDY FUNKHOUSE, M. BARGAN, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAMELA BARR, JILL KENNEDY, )

JASON LANE, )

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on referral

from the District Judge, and the determination of the Magistrate

Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

I Procedural background

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this matter on

June 2, 2006, and he filed an amended complaint on October 13,

2006. The amended complaint named as defendants M. Bargan,

Pamela Barr, Jill Kennedy, Jason Lane, and FNU Wandry, and it

also named John and Jane Doe defendants. See Docket No. 8. On

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 1 of 10
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

1

 The address indicated by Plaintiff for Defendant Wandry which

was unsuccessful was “Dr. Wandry” at the address of the Correctional

Health Services on West Monroe in Phoenix, Arizona. See Docket No.

20. The return of service unexecuted indicated there was no employee

by the last name of Wandry at the Correctional Health Services office.

-2-

December 12, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered Defendants Kennedy,

Bargan, Barr, Lane and Wandry be served and answer the first

amended complaint. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants

to answer the claim they were deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs because they failed to provide

him adequate care for his Hepatitis C. Plaintiff alleged, inter

alia, that he experienced unreasonable delays in treatment, was

subjected to improper testing, that he was mis-diagnosed, and

that he received a medication which caused adverse symptoms.

See Docket No. 11.

Defendant Wandry was dismissed as a defendant pursuant

to Plaintiff’s motion on February 13, 2007. See Docket No. 19.

Defendant Kennedy was served on or about February 16, 2007,

however, service on Defendants Lane, Bargan, and Barr was

returned unexecuted.1

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on

April 27, 2007, and lodged a proposed second amended complaint.

See Docket No. 29 & Docket No. 30. The proposed second amended

complaint filed prior to the date that a responsive pleading was

filed, sought to add additional defendants, i.e., “FNU” Espirito

and Defendant Wandry. The second amended complaint alleges

Defendant Wandry prescribed the medication Seroquel for

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 2 of 10
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 June 25, 2007, Defendants filed a pleading in response to

several motions filed by Plaintiff. See Docket No. 40. The pleading

filed by Defendants included a “Cross Motion” to dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint. See id. The motion to dismiss was denied on March 28,

2008. 

-3-

Plaintiff in October of 2004 through August of 2005 (Seroquel is

medication for schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or mania).

Plaintiff alleges this medication was contraindicated for the

treatment of Hepatitis C and that the medication caused him

physical harm. 

 On May 14, 2007, Defendants Bargan, Barr, Kennedy, and

Lane answered the first amended complaint. See Docket No. 32.

A scheduling order was issued, allowing the parties until

October 26, 2007, to complete discovery, and requiring Plaintiff

to file any motion to amend his complaint by August 3, 2007.

See Docket No. 33. On May 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to

“receive” the true identities of the Jane and John Doe

defendants. See Docket No. 34.

On September 19, 2007, the undersigned filed a Report

and Recommendation recommending that the motion to allow the

filing and service of a second amended complaint be granted.

See Docket No. 56.2 On February 19, 2008, the Court adopted the

Report and Recommendation and ordered that service packets be

provided to the Plaintiff for Defendant Espirito and Defendant

Wandry. See Docket No. 68. Plaintiff completed service packets

for these defendants and returned them to the Court. 

Service on Defendant Espirito was executed. On April

9, 2008, the United States Marshal returned notice of service

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 10
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-

unexecuted on Defendant Wandry. See Docket No. 71. Plaintiff

had indicated the first name of this defendant was unknown and

that they could be served at the office of Correctional Health

Services on West Monroe in Phoenix, Arizona. Service by mail

was returned with the notation dated March 25, 2008, that

Defendant Wandry was not an employee of Maricopa County. The

Marshal indicated they were unable to find Defendant Wandry.

See Docket No. 71.

On April 23, 2008, the undersigned ordered the Arizona

Department of Corrections and/or the Arizona Attorney General to

provide, under seal, the last known address of Defendant Wandry.

See Docket No. 73. On April 30, 2008, the undersigned issued a

scheduling order with regard to the claims stated in the second

amended complaint. Discovery is due by August 28, 2008, and

dispositive motions are to be filed by November 11, 2008. See

Docket No. 74. Defendants Kennedy, Bargan, Barr, Lane and

Espiritu filed an answer to the second amended complaint. 

On May 14, 2008, Defendants filed a response to the

order at Docket No. 73. See Docket No. 76. Defendants aver

that there is not now nor has there ever been an employee of the

Arizona Department of Corrections with the last name of Wandry

and that this defendant “may be an employee of the county jail.”

Id.

On June 10, 2008, the undersigned issued an Order to

Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to

serve Defendant Wandry within the time specified by Rule 4,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s order of

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 4 of 10
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-

February 8, 2008. See Docket No. 77. Plaintiff filed his

response to the Order to Show Cause on July 7, 2008. Plaintiff

states that Defendant Wandry was an employee of the Maricopa

County Jail and that “a thorough search of current and past

employee records of the Maricopa County jail would determine

this.” Docket No. 78. Plaintiff also states Defendant Wandry’s

first name is indicated in a previous pleading, apparently

referencing his filing at either Docket No. 45 or Docket No. 51.

The undersigned’s review of these pleadings does not reveal any

indication of Defendant Wandry. Plaintiff asks the Court to

order that the Maricopa County jail perform a thorough search of

their employee records and provide a current address for

Defendant Wandry to the Court.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if

a defendant is not served within [the time

allowed], 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.

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, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding

dismissal where no showing of good cause for delay in service).

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that the United States

Marshal’s failure to effect service for a prisoner proceeding in

forma pauperis constitutes “good cause.” See Puett v.

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (“we hold that an

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 5 of 10
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-

incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons

and complaint, and, having provided the necessary information to

help effectuate service, plaintiff should not be penalized by

having his or her action dismissed for failure to effect service

where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform

the duties required of each of them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)

and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). In Puett

the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff’s failure to

obtain proof of service was not due to his neglect because he

conscientiously took several steps to ensure that the defendants

would be served, stating: “[Plaintiff] obtained proof that the

... defendants were, indeed, at the address that he provided to

the U.S. Marshal. He repeatedly requested that the defendants be

personally served when mail services failed.” Id., 912 F.2d at

276. 

The Seventh Circuit has held that in the case of an in

forma pauperis plaintiff who is reliant on the United States

Marshal for service, if the Marshal is able to obtain an address

for a former prison employee using reasonable methods, then the

requisite showing of “good cause” is satisfied for the purposes

of Rule 4(m). Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 712 (7th

Cir.1995).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in

forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon

order of the court, shall serve the summons

and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

“‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to

rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 6 of 10
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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) provides that the officers of the court

"shall issue and serve all process" when a plaintiff is

proceeding in forma pauperis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)

dovetails with § 1915(c) by providing that the court must

appoint a United States Marshal to serve plaintiff’s

process “when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” Together,

Rule 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) stand for the

proposition that when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis the court is obligated to issue plaintiff’s

process to a United States Marshal who must in turn

effectuate service upon the defendants, thereby relieving

a plaintiff of the burden to serve process once reasonable

steps have been taken to identify for the court the

defendants named in the complaint. []

Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219-20 (6th Cir. 1996).

-7-

summons and complaint and ... should not be

penalized by having his action dismissed for

failure to effect service where the U.S.

Marshal or the court clerk has failed to

perform his duties.’”

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422.3 “So long as the prisoner has furnished

the information necessary to identify the defendant, the

marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause

....’” Id. However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide

the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect

service of the summons and complaint, the Court may, sua sponte,

dismiss the unserved defendants. Id., 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for his failure

to effect timely service. Neither Maricopa County Correctional

Health Services nor the Maricopa County “jail” are parties to

this matter which might be ordered to provide a last known

address for this defendant. Additionally, the undersigned notes

it is unlikely that either of these entities would have a

current address for this defendant, as the Correctional Health

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 7 of 10
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-

Services indicated more than one year ago that no employee with

that last name was employed by that entity at that time.

Furthermore, neither the Marshal Service nor the Court may

engage in investigatory efforts on behalf of parties to a

lawsuit as this would improperly place the Court in the role of

a plaintiff’s advocate. Cf. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,

1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding the court should not assume the

role of advocate for a pro se litigant).

Plaintiff has failed to establish that the address

provided with his service packet was ever a valid address for

Defendant Wandry, especially given that, upon returning a

service packet for his second amended complaint Plaintiff

provided an address at which he knew Defendant Wandry could not

be found given that service of the first amended complaint at

that address had failed. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to offer any

excuse for his failure to pursue a better address through

discovery or to take any action to obtain an extension of time

for service, or to timely obtain assistance in completing

service.

The Court retains discretion to grant a permissive

extension of time to serve, even in the absence of good cause,

where there is no statute of limitations bar, a lack of

prejudice to the defendant, or where the defendant has actual

notice of a lawsuit or where the defendant was eventually,

although not timely, served. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d

1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff does not argue that any

of these factors are extant in this case. Moreover, this case

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 8 of 10
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-

has otherwise proceeded apace. The undersigned finds no basis

to permissively extend the time for service. 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Wandry be dismissed as

a defendant in this matter for Plaintiff’s failure to effect

service on this defendant.

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. 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

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 9 of 10
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 -10-

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 14th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 80 Filed 07/15/08 Page 10 of 10