White v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
94
ORDER ADOPTING 78 Report and Recommendation to the extent it recommends dismissal without prejudice as to defendant Osborn and the unknown Doe defendants. The court will not adopt that portion of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 78 ) recommen ding dismissal without prejudice as to Robert C. and Jane Doe Patton for failure to effect service upon those two defendants. The plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed with his claims against the Patton defendants and others. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 5/22/14. (LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Rolly White,
No. CV-12-02415-PHX-RCB
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Arizona, State of, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
The Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
16
James F. Metcalf recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice as to
17
“Defendants Patten [sic],1 Unknown Osborn, and Unknown Parties” pursuant to
18
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) for failure to effect timely service. R & R (Doc. 78) at 3:1. Pending
19
before the court are the plaintiffs’ timely objections (Doc. 80) to the R & R.
20
The plaintiff objects to the R & R, but only to the extent that it recommends
21
dismissal of this action as to the Patton defendants. Objection (Doc. 80) at 4:1-2. The
22
plaintiff expressly acquiesces in dismissal as to defendant Osborn and the unknown Doe
23
defendants 1-40. Id. at 1, n. 1. Dismissal is not proper as to the Patton defendants, the
24
plaintiff argues, because they have answered the complaint and participated in discovery.
25
Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff further argues that the Patton defendants have
26
27
28
1
The R & R uses two different spellings -- “Patten” and “Patton[.]” See, e.g., R & R (Doc.
78) at 1:12; and 1:18. Regardless, clearly the R & R is referring to the same defendants. To be accurate
and consistent, this order will employ the spelling of the defendants themselves, i.e., Patton. See, e.g.,
Resp. (Doc. 90) at 1:17-18.
1
waived any defense regarding defects in the service of process.
2
The defendants State of Arizona, Charles S. Ryan and Jane Doe Ryan, Robert C.
3
Patton and Jane Doe Patton, Tara Diaz and John Doe Diaz, Madeline Perkins and John
4
Doe Perkins, Sergeant Putnam and Jane Doe Putnam, Officer Doreen Neu and Charles
5
Neu, Officer Jennifer Repp and John Doe Repp, Officer Jose Buendia and Jane Doe
6
Buendia, (collectively “the State defendants”) filed a timely response to plaintiff’s
7
objections (Doc. 90). While the State defendants “agree that the Patton Defendants
8
should not be dismissed from this case,” their reasoning differs from the plaintiff. Resp.
9
(Doc. 90) at 1:24-25. Dismissal is not appropriate, the State defendants argue, because
10
defendant Robert Patton “was actually served[]” with the complaint prior to the removal
11
of this action to federal court. Id. at 2:6.
12
It would have been preferable for the Patton defendants to have provided proof of
13
such service.2
14
obligation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, there is evidentiary support for defense counsel’s
15
assertion that the Patton defendants were served with the complaint in this case prior to
16
removal. This is all the more so considering that the Patton defendants, along with the
17
other State defendants, have filed an answer to the complaint. See Answer (Doc. 7).
18
Surely they would not have done so absent service of process. Service upon the Patton
19
defendants renders moot the plaintiff’s argument that the complaint should not be
20
dismissed as against that those defendants because they have made a general appearance
21
and participated in discovery.
Nonetheless, the court has no reason to doubt that in keeping with his
22
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
23
(1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 78) is ADOPTED to the extent it
24
recommends dismissal without prejudice as to defendant Osborn and the unknown Doe
25
26
27
28
2
The docket from the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, attached
to the Notice of Removal, indicates the filing of an affidavit of service as to Robert C. Patton on October
25, 2012. See Notice of Removal, exh. B thereto (Doc. 1-1) at 3. Without more, however, it cannot be
ascertained with certainty whether that affidavit pertains to service of the summons and complaint upon
defendant Patton.
2
1
defendants; but
2
(2) the court will not adopt that portion of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
3
78) recommending dismissal without prejudice as to Robert C. and Jane Doe Patton for
4
failure to effect service upon those two defendants. The plaintiff shall be allowed to
5
proceed with his claims against the Patton defendants and others.
6
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2014.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?