Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00467/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00467-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devin Blocher
Defendant
Boudreau
Defendant
John Doe
Plaintiff
Thomas R. Kane
Defendant
Andre Matevousian
Defendant
Mary Mitchell
Defendant
Deborah G. Schult
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS R. KANE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE, 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER, AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(Doc. Nos. 21, 23, 29, 33)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff John Doe (“Plaintiff”), proceeding through counsel, initiated 

this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against Defendants Thomas R. Kane, Andre Matevousian, Devin 

Blocher, Boudreau, Deborah G. Schult, and Mary Mitchell (“Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1.)

Summonses and civil new case documents were issued on April 12, 2019, and the Court set an 

Initial Scheduling Conference for July 11, 2019, before the undersigned. (Doc. Nos. 3, 4.)

On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the Initial Scheduling Conference on 

the grounds that he needed an additional thirty (30) days to serve Defendants. (Doc. No. 12.) The 

Court granted the motion and continued the Initial Scheduling Conference to August 13, 2019.

(Doc. No. 13.)

As of August 7, 2019, no proofs of service had been filed and none of the Defendants had 

appeared in the action. The Court therefore converted the Initial Scheduling Conference to a 

telephonic status conference regarding the status of service on Defendants. (Doc. No. 15.) On 

August 13, 2019, the morning of the status conference, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a ninety 

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 8
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

2

(90) day extension of time to serve Defendants with the summons and complaint. (Doc. No. 19.)

The Court held a telephonic status conference with Plaintiff’s counsel Ian Wallach and EJ 

Hurst on August 13, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21.) The Court discussed its concerns regarding the 

status of service on Defendants and the corresponding delay in the case. (Doc. No. 21.) Mr. Hurst 

further represented that Plaintiff intended to amend the complaint on or before August 16, 2019.

(Id.)

On August 15, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part 

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for service of the summons and complaint and ordered 

Plaintiff to serve Defendants by no later than September 12, 2019. (Doc. No. 23.) However, the 

Court’s order noted that it was not intended to address whether or not good cause existed for 

Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service within 90 days, whether the delay in service is excused, or 

the effect that the filing of an amended complaint, if any, may have on the time for service under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id.) On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 

Complaint against all Defendants except Thomas R. Kane. (Doc. No. 24.)

Plaintiff did not file any proofs of service indicating service had been accomplished by 

September 12, 2019, and none of the Defendants had appeared in the action as of that date.

Accordingly, On September 23, 2019, the Court set a status conference for October 10, 2019, 

regarding the status of service on Defendants. (Doc. No. 25.) On October 10, 2019, the morning 

of the status conference, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order requiring the United States 

Marshal Service to serve Defendants with the summons and complaint. (Doc. Nos. 26, 27.)

According to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant Boudreau had been served by substituted service on 

September 11, 2019. (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff provided a proof of service for Defendant Boudreau 

but indicated that Defendants Andre Matevousian, Devin Blocher, Mary Mitchell, and Deborah 

Schult had not been served. (Id.)

The Court held a telephonic status conference with Plaintiff’s counsel EJ Hurst on 

October 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 28, 29.) Mr. Hurst agreed to file appropriate dismissal documents for 

Thomas R. Kane by October 10, 2019, as he was still listed as a defendant on the Court’s docket.

(Doc. No. 29.) The Court further discussed its initial concerns with Plaintiff’s motion for an order 

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 8
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

3

requiring the United States Marshal Service to accomplish service, including whether Plaintiff has 

made diligent and exhaustive attempts to locate and serve Defendants. (Id.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to submit a status report regarding all attempts made and procedures used to locate and 

serve each Defendant on or before October 31, 2019. (Id.) On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for a one-day extension of time to file his status report regarding the attempts made to 

serve Defendants in this case. (Doc. No. 30.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on November 

1, 2019, and Plaintiff filed his status report the same day. (Doc. Nos. 31, 32.)

On November 7, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for an order 

directing the United States Marshal’s Service to serve Defendants with the summons and 

complaint. (Doc. No. 33.) The Court declined to exercise its discretion to direct the United States 

Marshal to serve process in this case because Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis and the 

United States Marshals Service is overburdened and understaffed. (Id.) Moreover, the United 

States Marshal Service does not investigate a party’s location and Plaintiff conceded in the 

motion that he is unaware of the unserved Defendants’ locations. (Id.) The Court reminded 

Plaintiff of his obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and cautioned that if 

service was not completed within thirty (30) days, the Court would recommend dismissal without 

prejudice of unserved Defendants. (Id.)

To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not filed any further proofs of service or status reports 

regarding service of the summons and complaint and none of the Defendants have appeared in

this action. 

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard 

Under Rule 4(e), service of process can be made on an individual within a judicial district 

of the United States by following state law for serving a summons or by:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual 

personally;

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode 

with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or

(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law 

to receive service of process.

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 8
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

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2); see also Moore v. Lacy, 2010 WL 5644658, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 

2010) (“In a Bivens suit, plaintiffs must comply with Rule 4(e), not Rule 4(i), to effect service.”). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m):

If a defendant is not served within 90 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “[Rule 4(m)] requires a district court to grant an extension of time [for 

service] if good cause is shown and permits the district court to grant such an extension even 

absent good cause.” Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 fn. 2 (9th Cir. 2003). “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). Whether 

good cause for the delay has been shown is determined on a case by case basis. Oyama v.

Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) further permits a district court to dismiss an 

action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Likewise, Local Rule 

110 provides that “[f]ailure ... of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the 

Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions...within the inherent 

power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 

Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply 

with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 8
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

5

order). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

B. Analysis 

Plaintiff has not shown excusable neglect for his failure to serve defendants under Rule 

4(m). Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on April 10, 2019, and his amended complaint was filed on 

August 16, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 1, 24.) The amended complaint omitted Defendant Kane but 

otherwise named the same Defendants as were named in the original complaint and set forth the 

same operative facts. (See id.) Accordingly, the 90-day window for service has long since passed.

See Thai v. United States, 2016 WL 1585135, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) (“With regard to 

originally named defendants, the filing of an amended complaint does not restart the service 

period against a defendant named in the original complaint under Rule 4(m).”).

Plaintiff has not filed any proofs of service for Defendants Thomas R. Kane, Andre 

Matevousian, Devin Blocher, Deborah G. Schult, and Mary Mitchell or otherwise indicated that 

these Defendants have been successfully served. Plaintiff did file a proof of service indicating that 

Defendant Boudreau was served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to “A. 

Garrison, Front Desk, United States Penitentiary, Atwater, who is designated by law to accept 

service of process on [Defendant Boudreau’s] behalf,” on September 11, 2019. (See Doc. No. 26-

1.) However, the Ninth Circuit has held that, “where money damages are sought through 

a Bivens claim, personal service, and not service at the place of employment, is necessary to 

obtain jurisdiction over a defendant in his capacity as an individual.” Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 

837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Jercich v. County of Merced, 2006 WL 3747184, at 

*5 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“Service at a person’s place of employment is generally insufficient if the 

claim is against a defendant in his individual capacity alone.”) (citing Daly-Murphy, 837 F.2d at 

355.). As Plaintiff has not provided any proof of personal service upon Defendant Boudreau, it 

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

appears this defendant has not been properly served.1

It has been over a year since this action was filed and more than seven months since 

Plaintiff last provided any information regarding his attempts to serve Defendants. Plaintiff’s 

most recent status report dated November 1, 2019, indicates that he was not able to serve

Defendants at their last known addresses. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff’s efforts to locate Defendants

through online address searches, review of news media and retired employee resources, and 

conversations with the Bureau of Federal Prisons’ Western Regional Office Human Resources 

director and litigation counsel have been unsuccessful. (Id.) While the Bureau of Federal Prisons’ 

litigation counsel indicated that the Defendants might be located through Freedom of Information 

Act (“FOIA”) requests or by seeking early discovery by subpoena, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that, 

in his experience, it is “extremely unlikely” that a FOIA request would yield employee 

information. (Id.) Therefore, it does not appear he has pursued such a request. Likewise, Plaintiff 

has not requested leave to conduct early discovery in order to obtain information regarding the 

unserved Defendants’ locations and does not appear to have made any other efforts to locate and 

serve Defendants.

In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no good cause to further extend the 

deadline for service. The Court additionally declines to exercise its discretion to grant such an 

extension without good cause as it appears that doing so would be futile. As none of the 

Defendants have been served with the summons and complaint, despite a year since filing and 

numerous admonitions from the Court, this action should instead be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to serve.

With respect to the factors relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to obey 

a court order, service is long overdue and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. 

1

“[S]ubstantial compliance with the service requirements of Rule 4 is sufficient so long as the opposing party 

receives sufficient notice[.]” Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1987). However, for the 

sufficient notice exception to apply, there must be a “justifiable excuse for the failure to serve properly.” Borzerka v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has not substantially complied with the service requirements of

Rule 4 because none of the Defendants have appeared in this action or otherwise responded to Plaintiff’s allegations 

and there is no other indication any of the Defendants received notice of the complaint at all. Likewise, Plaintiff’s 

counsel has not provided a “justifiable excuse” for his failure to comply with Rule 4. Plaintiff appears to have instead 

disregarded the Court’s earlier orders and ceased pursuing service of the Defendants. 

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the 

Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually 

weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v.

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party 

whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct 

impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1262; Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s November 7, 2019

order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to effect service within thirty (30) days would 

result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice of any unserved defendants. (Doc. No. 

33.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance.

Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 

would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions and the preclusion of 

evidence or witnesses are of little use and likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased 

litigating his case.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice for the failure to serve Defendants, failure to obey a court 

order, and failure to prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 8