Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08039/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Cowboy
Plaintiff
Sally Jewell
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

David Cowboy, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sally Jewell, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-08039-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on March 20, 2015, asserting a violation of the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Doc. 1. On September 21, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Id. On October 1, 2015, after review of the file, 

and finding no evidence that Plaintiff had served the summons and original complaint 

within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to show good cause for this failure. Id. 

 Plaintiff did not show good cause. Instead, he filed evidence of service of the 

original complaint on the Department of Interior on June 1, 2015 (Doc. 15), and evidence 

of service of the original complaint on the Department of Justice on June 2, 2015 

(Doc. 16). But he has not shown that he served the original complaint on the United 

States Attorney as required by Rule 4(i)(1)(A). As a result, service of the original 

complaint was never completed as required by Rule 4. Plaintiff has not shown that he 

has served the amended complaint on anyone. 

Case 3:15-cv-08039-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 The Court concludes that Plaintiff and his counsel have had ample opportunity to 

complete service of process. This case has been pending for more than seven months, the 

Court has pointed out his failure to complete service, and defense counsel specifically 

informed Plaintiff’s counsel of the need to serve the United States Attorney under 

Rule 4(i) (see Doc. 19-1 at 6). Notwithstanding the passage of ample time and these 

promptings, Plaintiff has not completed service of process as required by Rule 4. The 

Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss this case for insufficient service of 

process under Rule 12(b)(5). 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s amended/renewed motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) 

(Doc. 19) is granted. 

2. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 14th day of December, 2015. 

Case 3:15-cv-08039-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 2