Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01636/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01636-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Khalafala Moham Khalafala,

Plaintiff

-vsF. Arangure, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-11-1636-PHX-ROS (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

Plaintiff has failed to effect timely service of the only remaining defendant in this 

action, or to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Accordingly, the 

undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed. 

In the Court’s Scheduling Order filed December 15, 2011 (Doc. 22), the Court 

reminded Plaintiff that the deadline for service in this matter was December 17, 2011. In 

an order filed January 20, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend and 

extended the time for service to April 6, 2012. On January 19, 2012, the Court directed 

Defendant Kane to file a last known address for Defendant Funchess, who is now the 

sole remaining defendant in this action. Defendant Kane complied on January 26, 2012 

(Doc. 29), providing an address for Funchess’s employer, STGI, an independent 

contractor. 

To date, Plaintiff has failed to served Defendant Funchess, has not sought a timely 

extension, and appears to have taken no action in furtherance of service Defendant 

Funchess. Moreover, in the interim, Plaintiff has settled with all other defendants. (Doc. 

32, Stipulation; Doc. 37, Order.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01636-ROS Document 40 Filed 05/01/12 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: 

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. 

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). 

Accordingly, on April 9, 2012, the Court ordered (Doc. 39) Plaintiff to show 

cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect 

service as to Defendant Funchess. Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to do so has 

now run.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m) that this case be DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to 

Defendant Funchess.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a final judgment dismissing this case 

be entered.

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 

Case 2:11-cv-01636-ROS Document 40 Filed 05/01/12 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

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: May 1, 2012

11-1636o Order 12 04 30 re RR re Dismiss FTSrv.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01636-ROS Document 40 Filed 05/01/12 Page 3 of 3