Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01302/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01302-0/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

Hisrael Sanchez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01302-PHX-DJH (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on its own review. The Order filed on May 8, 

2015 (Doc. 23) dismissed without prejudice Defendant Cardenas. Upon further 

reflection, the undersigned vacates the Order (Doc. 23) and issues this Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). 

Plaintiff Hisrael Sanchez is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis/Buckley Unit in Buckeye, Arizona. On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil 

rights Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its September 15, 2014 

screening order (Doc. 10), the Court dismissed without prejudice Defendant Arizona 

Department of Corrections for failure to state a claim. The Court, however, ordered 

Defendant Vargas, Cortez, and Cardenas to respond to the Complaint. Defendants 

Vargas and Cortez agreed to waive service of the Complaint (Docs. 17 and 18). On 

December 12, 2014, Defendants Cortez and Vargas filed their Answer (Doc. 19). 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 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

Regarding Defendant Cardenas, a Process Receipt and Return (Doc. 22) was filed 

on April 17, 2015 indicating that the U.S. Marshals Service was unable to complete 

service on Defendant Cardenas. The Process Receipt and Return indicated that

Defendant Cardenas is no longer with the Arizona Department of Corrections. (Doc. 22 

at 2). 

On April 20, 2015, the Court filed an Order (Doc. 21) directing Plaintiff to show 

cause why Defendant Cardenas should not be dismissed without prejudice from this 

action for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21).

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, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding 

district court’s dismissal of a defendant where prisoner failed to show good cause for 

delay in service), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 

Yet even “if good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service 

upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 

(9th Cir. 2009). Determination of whether a party’s neglect is excusable is “at bottom an 

equitable one, taking account all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s 

omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). 

Relevant factors to consider include: (i) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 

(ii) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (iii) the reason for 

the delay; and (iv) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id.; Briones v. Riviera Hotel 

& Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that the four enumerated factors in 

Pioneer are not exclusive). 

After consideration of the above factors, the undersigned does not find excusable 

neglect. First, there is danger of prejudice to Defendant Cardenas. Defendant Cardenas, 

if eventually served, would be brought into litigation that has been pending for 

approximately one year and is subject to the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling 

- 2 -

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 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 

Order (Doc. 20) filed on April 20, 2015. Second, over two months have passed since 

service on Defendant Cardenas was returned unexecuted on April 17, 2015 (Doc. 22). 

Third, Plaintiff has undertaken no known action to attempt to complete service on 

Defendant Cardenas after the initial effort was unsuccessful. Finally, Plaintiff has failed 

to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Cardenas be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

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(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties shall have fourteen 

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 days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to any 

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant 

to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated this 26th day of June, 2015. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3