Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
2
3
4
5 .
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT `
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 Albert W. DeLeon, CV O4-446-PHX-PGR (MS)
9 Plaintiff, ·
10
vs. ORDER ·
11
Dora Schriro, etal.,
12 Defendants. I I
13
14 Before the Court is Plaintiffs "Motion for Extension of Time," "Motion to Toll Time
15 Pending Service of Remaining Defendants," and "Motion for Order to Execute Service
16 to Director of ADOC or Other 'Authorized Agent,"' filed July 13, 2005. In his motion,
17 Plaintiff argues that Federal. Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) provides for service on a
_ 18 chief executive ofHcer of a state or municipality, and therefore the Court should order
19 service on Defendants Reyna, Ramon and Paredez through ADOC's legal liaison.
2 0 On July 15, 2005, Defendants tiled an "Opposition to Motion for Order to Execute
21 Sen/ice to Director of ADOC or Other 'Authorized Agent."' In their opposition,
22 Defendants argue that service of individual defendants through an o.rganization's chief
23 executive officer is not authorized under Federal Ruie of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2).
24 Defendants further state that they are working with Plaintiffs private investigator to
25 determine whether Defendant Ramon can be served.
26 On July 18, 2005, Plaintiffs private investigatorltiled a "Notice of Filing Affidavit
27 By Private Process Server Re: Lack of Sen/ice, No Fault of Plaintiff." In the affidavit,
28 the investigator details attempts to effect service in this case on Defendants Ramon,
Reyna, and Paredez. The Court will not reiterate Plaintiffs summary as to Defendants
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 145 Filed 07/26/2005 ‘ Paget of 3

1 Rena and Ramon, as the information is contained in the Court's record. As to
2 Defendant Paredez, the investigator states that no second service attempt was made
3 on Defendant Paredez, even though counsel for Defendants submitted a second
4 address under seal. The investigator further states that an employee of ADOC advised
5 him that Defendant Paredez was employed by ADOC at the address provided by
6 Defendants, but that service was returned as undeliverable at his work address because
7 he was on extended medical leave. The investigator states that Defendant Ramon has
8 been served}
9 The Court will deny Plaintiffs "Motion for Order to Execute Service to Director of
10 ADOC or Other 'Authorized Agent'" as to all unserved Defendants. Plaintiff is incorrect
11 that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) allows for service of individual defendants
12 through a chief executive officer. Instead, the rule provides that if a state or
13 municipality, as a governing body, is named as a defendant, a plaintiff may execute
14 seniice of process through that state or municipaIity's chief executive. Both the Court
15 and Defendants have fulfilled their duties in procuring a service address for Defendant
16 Reyna. That is, Defendants filed their his last known address under seal, and sen/ice
17 was returned as unexecuted in April. _me_ Doc. # 123. The Court wiil deny Plaintiffs
18 motion for an extension of time to serve Defendant Reyna, as he did not timely seek an
19 extension of time to complete service on Defendant Reyna when service was returned
20 as unexecuted.
21 As to Defendant Paredez, the investigator states that Paredez recently left the
22 employ of ADOC. Therefore, the Court will order Defendants to file his last known
23 address under seal. The Court will grant Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to
24 effect service as to Defendant Paredez. The Court will deny the motion for extension
25 of time as to Defendant Ramon as moot.
26 _
27 .._.........................
28 I Defendant Ramon filed a "Notice of Joinder" in Defendants Answer on _
July 20, 2005.
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 145 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 As to Defendant Ramon, who has recently joined in Defendants' Answer, the
2 current deadlines contained in the Court's May 18, 2005 Scheduling Order shall remain
3 in effect. Accordingly,
4 IT IS ORDERED that:
5 1 . Plaintiffs "Motion for Extension of Time" and "Motion to Toll Time Pending
6 Service of Remaining Defendants filed July 13, 2005 is GRANTED in part
7 and DENIED in part as contained herein.
s 2. "Motion for Order to Execute Service to Director of ADOC or Other
9 'Authorized Agent,"' Hled July 13, 2005 is DENIED.
10 3. Defendants shall file under seal the last known address of Defendant
11 Paredez within 10 days of the tiling of this Order. Upon receipt of the
12 address, the Clerk shall expeditiously forward a service packet to the
13 United States Marshals Service for Defendant Paredez. Further service
14 shall be effected in accordance with the Court's May 11, 2004 Screening
15 Order. _ l
16 DATED this L- day of July, 2005.
17
18
19
20
21 Q; `Z
E; Ugtggl-gréggmggstrate Judge
24 l
25
26
27
28
3
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 145 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT

Document 145

Filed 07/26/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT

Document 145

Filed 07/26/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT

Document 145

Filed 07/26/2005

Page 3 of 3