Eldridge #147718 v. Schroeder

Filing 58

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED denying "Motion for Permission and Court Ordered to Service by Ad in 'USA Today.'" (Doc. 54 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying "Request of the Court." (Doc. 57 ). IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss without prejudice "Complaint for Negligence." (Doc. 21 ). (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 1/28/16. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joseph Gerald Eldridge,

No. CV-14-01325-PHX-DGC (ESW)

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
AND ORDER

JD Schroeder,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Motion for Permission and Court

17

Ordered to Service by Ad in ‘USA Today’” (Doc. 54), Request of the Court (Doc. 57),

18

and “Objection to Document 50” (Doc. 56). The Court has considered the motions and

19

sets forth its rulings herein.

20

In addition, the undersigned has considered Plaintiff’s “Complaint for Negligence”

21

(Doc. 21). For the reasons discussed in Sections II(A) and III(A) below, the undersigned

22

recommends that the Court dismiss the “Complaint for Negligence.” 1
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23
24

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye,

25

Arizona. He has filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 21) alleging a violation of his civil rights

26
27
28

1

As the undersigned’s screening of the “Complaint for Negligence” is dispositive
of claims raised in Plaintiff’s attempt to amend his complaint as a matter of right, the
undersigned makes the following recommendation pursuant to Rule 72 (b), Fed. R. Civ.
P., and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

1

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges one count of excessive force in violation

2

of the Eighth Amendment perpetrated against him by Defendant Schroeder. The Court

3

screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Defendant Schroeder

4

was required to answer.

5

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed “Complaint for Negligence.” (Doc.21). On

6

February 25, 2015, service was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Schroeder. (Doc.

7

22).

8

Department of Corrections (“ADC”). (Id.). The Attorney General thereafter filed under

9

seal Defendant Schroeder’s last known home address (Doc. 26). The U.S. Marshals

10

Service (“USMS”) was unable to serve Defendant Schroeder at his last known home

11

address. (Doc. 33). The home was vacant and had been sold as confirmed by USMS.

12

(Id.).

Defendant Schroeder has been terminated from the employ of the Arizona

13

The Court authorized the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to permit Plaintiff to

14

conduct limited discovery for purposes of serving Defendant Schroeder (Doc. 37).

15

Plaintiff has issued subpoenas to the ADC and Governor Ducey seeking “[a]ll of J.D.

16

Schroeder employment records. Any and all documents that has J.D. Schroeder name on

17

the document and has anything to do with J.D. Schroeder in any way on or in the form or

18

document or material in any form.” The Court quashed the subpoena duces tecum to the

19

Governor. (Doc. 50 at 4). The Court again required the ADC to search personnel records

20

and disclose to the Court under seal any document reflecting the current location of

21

Defendant J.D. Schroeder for purposes of service of process by USMS. (Doc. 50 at 4).

22

The Attorney General filed a “Notice of Compliance with the Court’s December 4, 2015

23

Order (Doc. 50)” on December 10, 2015, indicating that “[o]n December 9, 2015, the

24

ADC Central Office and ADC Human Resources conducted another thorough search in

25

attempt to locate any document reflecting an updated address for J.D. Schroeder.” (Doc.

26

53 at 1). Counsel stated that the last known address of Defendant Schroeder previously

27

filed under seal is the only information regarding Defendant Schroeder’s location in the

28

possession of the ADC.

-2-

1

USMS served a subpoena duces tecum upon the United States Postal Service

2

(“USPS”) on December 8, 2015, requesting “any and all knowed [sic] address’s [sic] for

3

one J.D. Schroeder and any member of the J.D. Schroeder family.” (Doc. 51). USMS

4

also served a subpoena duces tecum upon the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”).

5

(Doc. 49). The docket reflects that FBI Assistant General Counsel posted an email to the

6

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona’s website, stating that a search of FBI records

7

cannot be accomplished without a numerical identifier and “it is highly unlikely that the

8

FBI would have any record of Mr. Schroeder’s current address. . . .” (Doc. 52).

9

Plaintiff now seeks permission to serve Defendant Schroeder by running “an ad in

10

USA Today Newpaper [sic] or in the Media Networks.” (Doc. 54 at 1). Plaintiff further

11

asks the Clerk of Court to send to the “U.S. Department of Justice FBI” Defendant

12

Schroeder’s numerical identifier that Defendant Schroeder used at the ADC “(DOB, SS#,

13

etc.)” in order for a “record search of NCIC” to be done. (Doc. 57 at 1). Plaintiff

14

objects to the Court’s Order issued on December 4, 2015. (Doc. 50). Plaintiff also has

15

filed “Complaint for Negligence” which the Court considers to be an amended complaint.

16

(Doc. 21).

17

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

18

A. Amendment as a Matter of Course

19

Rule 15(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows a party to amend a pleading once as a matter

20

of course within twenty one days after serving it. LRCiv 15.1(b) requires a party who

21

files an amended pleading as a matter of course to file a separate notice of the filing of

22

the amended pleading. “The notice must attach a copy of the amended pleading that

23

indicates in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or

24

striking through the text that was deleted and underlining the text that was added.” Id.

25

LRCiv 3.4 requires all complaints filed by incarcerated persons to be “signed and legibly

26

written or typewritten on forms approved by the Court” unless the Court finds that the

27

complaint is understandable and conforms to applicable requirements.

28

-3-

1

A district court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have “the force of

2

law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citation omitted). The District

3

Court of Arizona routinely denies motions for leave to amend for failure to comply with

4

LRCiv 15.1(a). See, e.g., Bivins v. Ryan, 2013 WL 321847, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28,

5

2013); J-Hanna v. Tucson Dodge Inc., 2012 WL 1957832, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 31, 2012);

6

Huminski v. Heretia, 2011 WL 2910536, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2011).

7

B. Alternate Methods of Service

8

“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the

9

procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni Capital Intern.,

10

Ltd. V. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987), superseded by statute on other

11

grounds; SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2007). “A federal court is without

12

personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance

13

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986).

14

Rule 4(e)(1)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides in relevant part that “[u]nless federal law

15

provides otherwise, an individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the United

16

States by: (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of

17

general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is

18

made; or (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of

19

the complaint to the individual personally. . . .” Under Rule 4.1(k), Ariz. R. Civ. P., if

20

personal service becomes impracticable, then the court may direct that service be

21

accomplished by alternate means. See BMO Harris Bank, N.A., v. D.R.C. Investments,

22

L.L.C., No. CV-13-1692-PHX-LOA, 2013 WL 4804482, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2013)

23

(personal service found to be impracticable where five attempts made to serve and

24

defendants were evading service of process); see also Blair v. Burgener, 245 P. 3d 898,

25

903-04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (interpreting “impracticable” to mean difficult or

26

inconvenient, not impossible).

27

If the court allows an alternate or substitute form of service, “reasonable efforts

28

shall be undertaken by the party making service to assure that actual notice of the

-4-

1

commencement of the action is provided to the person to be served . . . .” Rule 4.1(k),

2

Ariz. R. Civ. P. “[A]lternative method[s] of service must comport with constitutional

3

notions of due process.” BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Guthmiller, No. CV-14-00275-PHX-

4

JAT, 2014 WL 2600362, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2014).

5

“reasonably calculated under all the circumstances, to apprise the interested parties of the

6

pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”

7

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
III. DISCUSSION

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The method must be

A. Recommendation that the Court Dismiss Plaintiff’s “Complaint of
Negligence” (Doc. 21)
The undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with LRCiv 15.1(b) and
LRCiv 3.4 in filing his “Complaint for Negligence.”

(Doc. 21).

Plaintiff has not

presented the document on the proper form. Plaintiff is aware of the proper form because
he used it when filing his Complaint. Nor has Plaintiff filed a separate notice that he is
filing an amended complaint as a matter of course. There is no attachment to the required
notice that indicates by strike out, underlining, or bracketing in what way the “Complaint
for Negligence” (Doc. 21) differs from the Complaint (Doc. 1). Because the “Complaint
for Negligence” does not comply with the Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, the undersigned will recommend that the “Complaint for
Negligence” be dismissed without prejudice.
B. Plaintiff’s “Objection to Document 50” (Doc. 56)
Plaintiff has filed “Objection to Document 50,” which the undersigned construes
as a timely filed objection directed to District Judge Campbell, seeking review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Order filed on December 4, 2015. (Doc. 50). Pursuant to Rule 72(a),
Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff may file an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive
pretrial order within fourteen days after being served with a copy. The undersigned
refers “Objection to Document 50” (Doc. 56) to District Judge Campbell for further
action deemed appropriate.

-5-

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

C. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Permission and Court Ordered to Service by Ad in
‘USA Today’” (Doc. 54)
This case was originally filed on June 13, 2014. (Doc. 1). The Court granted
Plaintiff’s fourth Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, screened Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A(a), and required Defendant Schroeder to
answer. (Doc. 14 at 2-4). The Court thereafter granted Plaintiff three extensions of time
within which to serve Defendant Schroeder. (Docs. 17, 25, 37). The Court allowed the
issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to “permit the Plaintiff to conduct reasonable
discovery limited to ascertaining the requisite service information for Defendant
Schroeder, specifically Defendant Schroeder’s current address.” (Doc. 37 at 2). Plaintiff
has attempted to secure a current address for Defendant Schroeder through the use of the
provided subpoenas duces tecum. However, despite the efforts Plaintiff has made to
locate Defendant Schroeder, Defendant Schroeder has not been served.

The last

extension of time to serve expired on December 14, 2015. (Id.) The Court has ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to timely serve pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc 50). Plaintiff has filed
an objection to the Court’s Order. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff has also responded to the order to
show cause. (Doc. 55). Because Plaintiff has objected to the Court’s Order (Doc. 50)
requiring Plaintiff to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed, the
undersigned does not address Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 55) to the order to show cause at
this time.
Plaintiff’s attempts to locate Defendant Schroeder have been unsuccessful to date.
Plaintiff now requests that the Court approve an alternate means of service. Plaintiff
seeks permission to serve Defendant Schroeder by having USMS place an ad in the USA
Today newspaper or “the Media Networks.” (Doc. 54 at 1). However, in order to
approve an alternate method of service of process, the Court must find, and Plaintiff must
show, that personal service is “impracticable.” Rule 4.1(k), Ariz. R. Civ. P. The Court
finds that Plaintiff has not done so. Defendant Schroeder has left the employ of the ADC

-6-

1

and moved. No evidence has been presented to suggest that Defendant Schroeder is

2

evading service of process or that service of process is so difficult and inconvenient that

3

an alternate method of service is necessary. If USMS had a current address for the

4

Defendant, the Court has no reason to believe USMS would be unable to effectuate

5

personal service.

6

Even if the Court were to find that personal service of Defendant Schroeder is

7

impracticable, the alternate methods of service of process sought by Plaintiff do not

8

comport with constitutional notions of due process. An ad in USA Today or Media

9

Networks is not a reasonable alternative method of service that would assure actual

10

notice of the lawsuit to Defendant Schroeder. Therefore, the Court will deny “Motion for

11

Permission and Court Ordered to Service by Ad in ‘USA Today.’” (Doc. 54).

12

D. “Request of the Court” (Doc. 57)

13

Plaintiff has also filed a “Request of the Court.” (Doc. 57). Plaintiff’s document

14

is not a proper motion. Plaintiff cannot request relief from the Court through the filing of

15

a “Request” directed to the Clerk of Court. See Rule 7(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“A request

16

for a court order must be made by motion.”). In addition, the Clerk of Court is not in

17

possession of the information Plaintiff wishes to provide to the USMS. Nor is the Court.

18

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s “Request of the Court.”
CONCLUSION

19
20

For the reasons set forth above,

21

IT IS ORDERED denying “Motion for Permission and Court Ordered to Service

22

by Ad in ‘USA Today.’” (Doc. 54).

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying “Request of the Court.” (Doc. 57).

24

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss without prejudice “Complaint

25
26
27
28

for Negligence.” (Doc. 21).
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.
-7-

1

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties shall have fourteen days

2

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

3

written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within

4

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to any factual

5

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

6

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

7

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

8

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

9
10

Dated this 28th day of January, 2016.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8-