Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08048/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08048-2/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

Donald Alphonso Allen, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 13-08048 PHX DJH MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT

Commissioner of Arizona State ) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

Prison; Pamela Rider; President ) SERVE

of Management & Training )

Corporation, ASPC Kingman; ) 

CO Denoyer; Unknown Parties, ) 

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA:

Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 11, 2013,

alleging, inter alia, a cause of action pursuant to section

1983, regarding an incident which occurred on April 26, 2012, at

the Arizona Department of Corrections facility in Kingman,

Arizona. On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff was, and he is now,

incarcerated in New Jersey. Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint (Doc. 7) on May 20, 2013. On July 16, 2013, the Court

granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in this matter

in forma pauperis and ordered Defendant Denoyer to answer the

claim stated in Plaintiff’s amended complaint at Doc. 7. 

The screening order states:

In his one-count First Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: John

Doe Commissioner of the Arizona State Prison

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 8
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-

(John Doe Commissioner), Warden [] Rider,

John Doe President of M.T.C. (John Doe

President), Correctional Officer Denoyer, and

“Captains and Sergeants, and L[ieu]tenants of

the F[ir]st Shift Staff 1-10 I/J/S/A ABC

Entities of Arizona State Prison Kingman

Complex.”

 Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to

excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment, when Defendant Denoyer[,] while

Plaintiff was being searched, released his

canister of pepper spray into Plaintiff’s

face and immediately placed his restraints on

Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that his vision

became impaired from the incident and he had

to seek additional eye care....

 Plaintiff claims that the post-incident

investigation determined Defendant Denoyer

had used excessive force, Plaintiff received

a formal apology, and Defendant Denoyer was

relieved of his duties for the remainder of

his tour of duty that day. In addition, in

response to Plaintiff’s grievance regarding

the incident, Defendant Rider stated that

Defendant Denoyer’s employment was terminated

as a result of the incident.

Doc. 9.

The Court ordered all other defendants and claims

stated in the first amended complaint be dismissed. The Court

warned Plaintiff that his failure to obtain service of process

on Defendant Denoyer within sixty days of the date that order

was entered, i.e., by September 13, 2013, would result in the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), Local Rules of

Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion

for the appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff returned a service packet for Defendant

Denoyer to the Court. A second amended complaint (Doc. 11) was

docketed without leave of the Court on August 8, 2013, naming as

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 2 of 8
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-

defendants Unknown Denoyer, Pamela Rider, Unknown Parties,

Unknown Party (Commissioner of Arizona State Prison), Unknown

Party (President of Management & Training Corporation), and ASPC

Kingman Complex. Plaintiff was not entitled to docket another

amended complaint without leave of the Court.

The address provided by Plaintiff for service on

Defendant Denoyer was at the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Kingman, Arizona. Service on Defendant Denoyer was returned as

unexecuted on August 29, 2013. See Doc. 13. The return of

service indicates that service documents were mailed to the

Kingman prison and returned to the United States Marshal with a

notation that Defendant Denoyer was no longer employed at the

prison. Id.

On November 15, 2013, the Court issued an order

requiring Plaintiff to show cause for the failure to serve

Defendant Denoyer. See Doc. 16. In response, Plaintiff filed

a motion (Doc. 18) seeking an extension of the time allowed to

effect service, asserting that Plaintiff has no other address

for Defendant Denoyer but noting that he had filed a motion to

compel the Arizona Department of Corrections, which is not a

party to this matter, to disclose Defendant’s last known address

and to compel the Arizona Department of Corrections to “admit”

that Defendant’s employment was terminated as a result of the

incident alleged by Defendant. In an order issued January 14,

2014, the Court directed the United States Marshal to make

greater inquiry and re-attempt service on Defendant Denoyer, and

allowed Plaintiff until March 3, 2014, to serve Defendant

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 3 of 8
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 Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of

that order to the United States Marshal. The Marshal was required to,

within thirty days, make further inquiry of the Arizona Department of

Corrections as to obtaining a last known home address for Defendant

Denoyer. The Marshal was further ordered to, within fifteen days of

receiving this information, attempt service on Defendant Denoyer at

the address provided by the Arizona Department of Corrections.

-4-

Denoyer.1

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 22)

seeking leave to amend his second amended complaint at Doc. 11,

which had been docketed without leave of the Court. Plaintiff’s

proposed third amended complaint sought to identify John Doe

defendants who had been dismissed from this matter. In an order

issued March 10, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to amend his complaint, based on the failure to state a

claim for relief against the defendants. According, Defendant

Denoyer is the only defendant in this matter. 

On March 24, 2014, service was again returned as

unexecuted on Defendant Denoyer. See Doc. 26. Plaintiff filed

another motion seeking leave to amend his complaint on April 21,

2014.

On May 8, 2014, a Report and Recommendation was issued,

recommending that this matter be dismissed for Plaintiff’s

failure to effect service on Defendant Denoyer, the only

defendant in the matter. See Doc. 32. The Report and

Recommendation was adopted and the case dismissed on May 30,

2014. See Doc. 34. On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff docketed a

motion seeking additional time to serve Defendant Denoyer and

alleging that he had an avenue for discovering the whereabouts

of Defendant Denoyer for the purpose of serving Defendant. See

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 4 of 8
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-

Doc. 39. On June 28, 2014, Plaintiff docketed objections to the

Report and Recommendation at Doc. 32. See Doc. 40. On August

14, 2014, because Plaintiff had identified an option for

discovering an address for Defendant Denoyer, the Report and

Recommendation at Doc. 32 was vacated and the case was re-opened

and the Court ordered that Management and Training Corporation

disclose the last known address for this defendant under seal

and that the Marshal against attempt to serve Defendant Denoyer.

See Doc. 41. 

On September 9, 2014, service on Defendant Denoyer at

the address provided under seal was returned as unexecuted. See

Doc. 43.

Plaintiff has failed to effect service of process on

Defendant Denoyer despite having been given an extra year to do

so. 

Dismissal of a civil action for failure to serve is a

matter within the Court’s discretion. See, e.g., Puett v.

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990). In cases involving

plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States

Marshal, upon order of the Court, is authorized to serve the

summons and the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c); Boudette v.

Barnett, 923 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991). “[A]n 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 ... 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....” Puett,

912 F.2d at 275. So long as the prisoner has furnished the

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 5 of 8
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

The Court is not required to act as an investigative body

in ascertaining a correct address for Defendant. Allen, 2014 WL 2435685, at *3. In Allen, this Court concluded that

“neither the [Marshals] nor the Court may engage in

investigatory efforts on behalf of the parties to a lawsuit

-6-

information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshal’s

failure to effect service “is automatically good cause within

the meaning of Rule 4(j).” Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d

598, 603 (7th Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted).

However, it remains Plaintiff’s responsibility to

provide the United States Marshal with accurate and sufficient

information to effect service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995). And the Court

is not required to act as an investigative body in ascertaining

a correct address for Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2);

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422; Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th

Cir. 2006) (holding the court is responsible for assisting

indigent plaintiffs with service of process). The District

Court judges of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona have concluded that “neither the [USMS] nor

the Court may engage in investigatory efforts on behalf of the

parties to a lawsuit as this would improperly place the Court in

the role of an advocate.” E.g. DeRoche v. Funkhouser, 2008 WL

42277659, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2008), citing Hall v.

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that the

Court should not assume the role of advocate for a pro se

litigant). See also Pember v. Ryan, 2014 W L 3397735, at *2-*3

(D. Ariz.)2; Ramirez v. Denver Health Medical Center, 2006 WL

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 6 of 8
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

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

advocate.” Id. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that

federal “judges have no obligation to act as counsel or

paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.

225, 231 (2004). As an impartial decision maker, it is not

a federal judges’ role or responsibility to track down a

defendants’ address so a plaintiff may serve process. This

degree of involvement “would undermine [trial] judges role

as impartial decisionmakers.” Id.

 Further, the Local Rules of Civil Procedure that govern

prisoner civil rights suits provide that service shall be

completed by the “maximum date to effect service, pursuant

to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or sixty

(60) days from filing of service order, whichever is

later.” LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure require that service be completed within 120 days

of the date the complaint was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

“If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the

complaint is filed 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.” Id.

-7-

2527965, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 30, 2006).

The United States Supreme Court has made

clear that federal “judges have no obligation

to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se

litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231

(2004) As an impartial decision maker, it is

not a federal judge’s role or responsibility

to track down a defendant’s address so a

plaintiff may serve process. This degree of

involvement “would undermine [trial] judges’

role as impartial decisionmakers.” Id. In

this action, the Court has taken many steps

to help facilitate Plaintiff’s efforts in

attempting to serve Defendant [], including

providing blank subpoenas. If Plaintiff

cannot provide the United States Marshal

Service with an appropriate address to serve

Defendant Clark, the Court can do little more

at this juncture. 

Johnson v. Clark, 2013 WL 646022, at *5 (D. Ariz.).

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint and this

action be dismissed without prejudice for the failure to serve

the only defendant remaining in this matter.

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 7 of 8
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-

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 fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) 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 11th day of September, 2014.

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 44 Filed 09/11/14 Page 8 of 8