Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02415/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02415-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rolly White,

Plaintiff

-vsState of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-12-2415-PHX-RCB (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

on Dismissal of Unserved Defendants

In their Joint Discovery Plan (Doc. 13), the parties reported that all parties have 

been served and appeared other than Defendant Patten. The parties reported that defense 

counsel was willing to accept service for Defendant Patten, but had not been authorized 

to do so. 

Subsequently, the Court noted that the Answer filed on February 15, 2013 (Doc. 

7) purported to have been filed on behalf of, inter alia, “Robert C. Patton and Jane Doe 

Patton.” (Answer, Doc. 7 at 1.) That answer, was, however, filed prior to the Joint 

Discovery Plan indicating a lack of service and appearance by Patton. In addition, the 

Court noted that Defendants Unknown Osborn (named as Jane Doe Osborn/wife), and 

Unknown Parties (named as John and Jane Does 1-40), appeared to remain unserved and 

had not appeared. 

Consequently, in its Order filed April 18, 2013 (Doc. 14), the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file a memorandum showing cause why Defendants Patten, Unknown 

Osborn, and Unknown Parties should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

effect timely service.

Plaintiff has not responded. No subsequent returns of service or answers have 

been filed with regard to such defendants.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 78 Filed 04/14/14 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

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. But if the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the 

time for service for an appropriate period. 

Local Civil Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), which governs prisoner civil rights suits, provides 

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.” In addition, the Court’s Scheduling Order, filed February 19, 2013 

(Doc. 8) advised Plaintiff that the presumptive maximum service date was March 18, 

2013.

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 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding 

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

At a minimum, "good cause" means excusable neglect. A plaintiff 

may also be required to show the following: (a) the party to be 

served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the 

defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be 

severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). 

Notwithstanding Rule 4(m), where "good cause does not exist, the court may in 

its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for 

service." Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3rd Cir. 1995). "[I]f 

good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a 

showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Service on Defendants Patten, Unknown Osborn, and Unknown Parties has not 

been completed, and is past due. Despite being explicitly directed to do so, Plaintiff has 

failed to show good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to 

complete service on these defendants.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule 4(m), 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 78 Filed 04/14/14 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

Defendants Patten, Unknown Osborn, and Unknown Parties be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, 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. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: April 14, 2014

12-2415o Order 14 04 11 re RR Dismiss FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 78 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 3