Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02740/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02740-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Eduardo Gomez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

EOS CCA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-02740-PHX-JAT (DMF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant EOS CCA’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff Eduardo Gomez (“Plaintiff”) has responded, (Doc. 56), and 

EOS CCA has replied, (Doc. 58). The Court now rules on the motion.

This case arises out of Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants violated the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). (Doc. 6 at 

1). Plaintiff asserts Defendants TransUnion and Equifax violated provisions of the FCRA 

that require such “consumer reporting agencies” to follow reasonable procedures to ensure 

maximal accuracy in consumer credit reports and to reinvestigate a nonfrivolous consumer 

complaint of an inaccuracy in his or her credit report. (Id. at 3–4). Plaintiff raises four 

FDCPA claims, levying them exclusively against Defendant EOS CCA. (Id. at 4). In the 

pending motion to dismiss, EOS CCA argues that Plaintiff’s action against it must be 

dismissed because Plaintiff failed to timely serve it with the summons and complaint under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m) and this Court’s order extending the time 

to effect service, (Doc. 26). (Doc. 43 at 1).

Case 2:18-cv-02740-JAT-DMF Document 79 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

Under Rule 4(m), if a summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 

90 days after filing, a court shall either dismiss the action or, if the plaintiff shows good 

cause for the failure, direct that service be effected within a specified time.

[G]ood cause is likely (but not always) to be found when the plaintiff's failure 

to complete service in timely fashion is a result of the conduct of a third 

person, typically the process server, the defendant has evaded service of the 

process or engaged in misleading conduct, the plaintiff has acted diligently 

in trying to effect service or there are understandable mitigating 

circumstances, or the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or in forma pauperis.

4B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Adam N. Steinman, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 1137 (4th ed. April 2020 Update). Rule 4(m) also permits a court to grant a 

discretionary extension even absent good cause. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040

(9th Cir. 2007). A court abuses that discretion, however, when it fails to consider such 

factors as “a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, 

and eventual service.” Id. at 1041 (quoting Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 

381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)).

Previously, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action against EOS CCA after Plaintiff

failed to respond to an order to show cause for not timely serving EOS CCA. (Doc. 21). 

Once Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause, (Doc. 25), the Court exercised its 

discretion to excuse his failure to timely serve EOS CCA and ordered him to “complete 

and return the service packet to the Clerk of the Court within 21 days” of June 10, 2019, 

(Doc. 26 at 2). Because Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner whose filings generally benefit from 

the mailbox rule, see Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2009), he had 

until July 1, 2019, to at least deliver the service packet to prison authorities in order to 

comply with the Court’s order.

EOS CCA argues that Plaintiff’s action against it must be dismissed again because 

the U.S. Marshal’s process receipt form was signed on July 22, 2019. (Doc. 43 at 3–4). 

According to EOS CCA, the July 22 signature date necessarily means that Plaintiff could 

not have complied with the Court’s order to return the service packet to the Clerk of the 

Case 2:18-cv-02740-JAT-DMF Document 79 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Court within 21 days. A review of the Court’s docket, however, reveals that the Clerk of 

the Court noted receipt of the service packet on July 22. Thus, contrary to EOS CCA’s 

representation, that date does not necessarily represent the day Plaintiff completed the 

form. The Court acknowledges that the interval between July 1 and July 22 is not 

insignificant, nevertheless, the Court cannot definitively conclude that Plaintiff failed to

deliver his service packet to prison authorities by July 1. It is clearly within the realm of 

possibility that Plaintiff completed his packet and handed it to prison authorities on or 

before July 1 and that the July 22 receipt date is attributable to those authorities’ delay. 

Absent a contrary showing, the Court cannot exclude that possibility. Accordingly, given

the mailbox rule, the Court cannot grant a motion to dismiss based on lack of timeliness.1

EOS CCA’s motion seemingly makes much of the fact that that the U.S. Marshal 

did not serve Plaintiff’s complaint until October 7, 2019. (Doc. 43 at 4). However, “an 

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[s] should not be penalized” for their delays. 

Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis omitted). Any such delays

thus qualify, automatically, as good cause under Rule 4(m). Armado v. Advanced Call Ctr. 

Techs., No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 906053, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 16, 2011). 

Therefore, to the extent EOS CCA argues that the action against it should be dismissed on 

the basis that it was not served until October 7, that argument similarly misses the mark.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

1

In reply, EOS CCA asks the Court to treat Plaintiff’s late response as consent to the 

granting of its motion under LRCiv 7.2(i). (Doc. 58 at 12). LRCiv 7.2(i), however, is 

expressly discretionary. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant a motion that 

seeks dismissal for a reason contrary to the record.

Case 2:18-cv-02740-JAT-DMF Document 79 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 

Defendant EOS CCA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43).

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant EOS CCA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43) is 

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant EOS CCA shall file an answer—or 

other responsive pleading, if still timely—within 14 days from the date of this order.

Dated this 12th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-02740-JAT-DMF Document 79 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 4