Report & Recommendation re Dismiss Loyd
JAMES F. METCALF, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has failed to timely serve Defendant Loyd. This matter is before the undersigned magistrate judge on referral for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because the appropriate resolution of motions is potentially dispositive of some of Plaintiff's claims, the undersigned proceeds by way of a Report & Recommendation to the referring district judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
A. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 28, 2019, by filing his Complaint (Doc. 1). On May 14, 2019, the Court screened the Complaint, dismissed various claims and defendants, and ordered service on and answers from Defendants Corizon, Ryan, Buchholz, Johnson, Rainey, Natasha, Gertz, Tana, Smith, Hawley, Gay, Flake, Weigel, Demery, Gowey, Chamberlain, Romero, Scott, Nieblas, Loyd, and Vinson.
Service has since been completed on and/or answers filed by Defendants Corizon, Ryan, Buchholz, Rainey, Gertz, Smith, Gay, Flake, Weigel, Demery, Chamberlain, Romero, Scott and Neiblas. Service is still outstanding on Defendants Tana, and Hawley. A separate Report & Recommendation has been issued regarding motions to exted time to served Defendants Natasha, Gowey, Vinson, and Johnson, recommending they be dismissed. That leaves Defendant Loyd.
First attempts at service were returned unexecuted on Defendant Loyd on July 22, 2019 (Doc. 51). On Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 48), a last known address was ordered from Corizon Inc. for Loyd (Order 8/13/19, Doc. 88) A last known home address was provided under seal on August 27, 2019 (Docs. 98, 103). However, service on Loyd had been previously attempted at a residential address provided to the U.S. Marshals Service by Corizon. The Court declined to order service until the Court could confirming with the Marshals that they had not attempted service at the address now provided. (Order 8/28/19, Doc. 107.) Plaintiff moved for service at the address, and the Court's staff had been advised that service was previously attempted at the sealed address provided, but only once. Accordingly, and in light of the delay, personal service at the home address was ordered. (Order 9/16/19, Doc. 123.)
Second attempts at service were again attempted on Loyd. However, service was returned unexecuted on October 10, 2019 (Doc. 143).
On October 22, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff 14 days to respond to an order to show cause why Loyd should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m) for failure to timely serve. (Order 10/22/19, Doc. 157.)
Plaintiff has not responded.
B. APPLICABLE STANDARD
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.
Local Civil Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), which governs prisoner civil rights suits, provides that service shall be completed by the "maximum date to effect service, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or sixty (60) days from filing of service order, whichever is later." Under these rules, Plaintiff had through July 15, 2019 to complete service.
Because Rule 4(m) does not establish a cutoff for service, but rather a time after which consideration of dismissal becomes appropriate, the normal standards of "good cause" under Rule 6(b) do not apply.
Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect. Exercise of discretion to extend time to complete service is appropriate when, for example, a statute-of-limitations bar would operate to prevent re-filing of the action.
Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir.2009) (internal citations omitted).
C. APPLICATION OF LAW
1. No Good Cause
Under the first avenue for relief from delays in service, the court must grant the extension on a showing of "good cause." Rule 4 does not define "good cause." The Ninth Circuit has recognized that "[a]t a minimum, `good cause' means excusable neglect." Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991). Implicit is the determination that some causes don't involve neglect and thus need not be "excused," e.g. diligent but unsuccessful efforts to timely serve.
The undersigned does not find good cause for the failure to effect timely service. Although Plaintiff has taken past steps to effect service, he fails to show any recent or current efforts, or that future steps are planned or possible which are likely to allow service on these defendants to be completed.
2. No Excusable Neglect
Notwithstanding Rule 4(m), where "good cause does not exist, the court may in its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for service." Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3rd Cir. 1995). The applicable standard is "a showing of excusable neglect." Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198.
Plaintiff fails to offer anything to show excusable neglect for his failure to timely serve Loyd. The undersigned finds none.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Defendant Loyd be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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 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).
In addition, the parties are cautioned Local Civil Rule 7.2(e)(3) provides that "[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages."
