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

Robert Angel Ramirez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph Brisbois, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00004-PHX-DWL (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Robert Angel Ramirez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (Doc. 

1), alleging inadequate medical treatment. The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered Defendants Brisbois and Barkclay to answer 

(Doc. 7 at 9). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service no later than sixty (60) 

days from the filing of its screening Order (Doc. 7 at 10). 

On January 4, 2019, the Court resent to the Plaintiff a service packet for Defendant 

Brisbois, and the Court extended the deadline for filing proof of service an additional fortyfive (45) days (Doc. 27 at 2). Plaintiff sent a completed service packet to the Clerk of 

Court on February 19, 2019 (Doc. 35) which was forwarded to the United States Marshal 

Service (“USMS”) on February 28, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Process Receipt and 

Return was filed, noting: “Returned unexecuted—no longer w/ Corizon per Corizon 

Liaison.” (Doc.39). 
- 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 Plaintiff noted in his service packet that he did not know the current address of 

Defendant Brisbois, though he provided an address “from the internet.” (Doc. 35 at 1). He 

related that he had previously requested in Plaintiff’s “Motion of Consideration of Service, 

and Address of Defendant” (Doc. 26) that the Court provide Plaintiff with Defendant 

Brisbois’ address or order Corizon Health, Inc. to provide Defendant Brisbois’ address, 

and the Court did not grant Plaintiff’s request (Doc. 35 at 1). It is not the Court’s role to 

assist in obtaining Defendant Brisbois’ address. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F. 3d 1212, 

1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for 

pro se litigants.”); Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)( federal judges have no 

obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants”)(italics in original); Barnes v. 

United States, 241 F.2d 252 (9th Cir. 1956)(noting pro se litigant does not have rights that 

a represented litigant does not have). 

Plaintiff has not requested additional time to serve Defendant Brisbois, and the 

extended service deadline has passed. The Court has extended the time to serve for over a 

year. Where a prisoner fails to provide the USMS with accurate and sufficient information 

to effect service of the summons and complaint, a court’s sua sponte dismissal of the 

unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F. 2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other

grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff show cause NO LATER THAN 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 why Defendant Brisbois should not be dismissed from the lawsuit 

for failure to timely serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Dated this 30th day of August, 2019.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge