Johnson v. Brady et al
Filing
105
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Derrick Johnson's Rule 60 motion (Doc. 101 ) is denied. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/2/18. (SLQ)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Derrick Johnson, et al.,
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-14-01875-PHX-DGC
Robert Brady, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiff Derrick Johnson has filed a Rule 60 motion to vacate three orders entered
17
in this case. Doc. 101. Defendants responded (Docs. 103, 104), and Plaintiff did not
18
reply. No party requests oral argument. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
19
I.
Background.
20
On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against various government
21
employees and municipalities (“Defendants”). Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed an application to
22
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and a Rule 4(c)(3) motion for service by a U.S.
23
marshal (Doc. 4). The Court granted the application and motion. Doc. 8. The Court
24
ordered the Clerk to deliver service packets to Plaintiff and directed Plaintiff to complete
25
and return them to the Clerk so that the U.S. Marshal could execute service. Doc. 8
26
at 1-2. When Plaintiff returned the packets, the Clerk forwarded them to the Marshal for
27
service on Defendants. See Doc. 101.
28
Defendants filed three motions to dismiss.
Docs. 11, 20, 22.
On
1
January 28, 2015, the Court granted two of the motions in full and one in part. Doc. 37
2
(“January 28 order”). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 44), and Defendants
3
again filed three motions to dismiss (Docs. 49, 50, 51). On June 17, 2015, the Court
4
granted two of the motions in full and one in part. Doc. 65 (“June 17 order”). The
5
remaining Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 78. Plaintiff did
6
not respond. Doc. 83; Doc. 89 at 2. On February 16, 2016, the Court dismissed “this
7
action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, his failure to follow the
8
applicable rules, and his failure to comply with the Court’s orders.”
9
(“February 16 order”).
10
Id. at 3
Plaintiff now moves for Rule 60 relief, alleging that a procedural mistake requires
11
the Court to vacate the January 28, June 17, and February 16 orders. Doc. 101.
12
II.
Analysis.
13
Plaintiff must show that Rule 60 relief is warranted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Plaintiff
14
relies on an alleged violation of Rule 4(b) to justify vacating the three orders. Doc. 101.
15
Plaintiff argues that Rule 4(b) required the Clerk to “sign, seal, and issue” the summons.
16
Id. at 2. The Clerk’s failure to do so, Plaintiff argues, is an error that requires the Court
17
to vacate its prior orders. Id.
18
Rule 4(b) provides that “the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for
19
signature and seal. If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and
20
issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (emphasis
21
added). But Plaintiff elected not to serve Defendants himself. Plaintiff instead requested
22
that “service . . . be made by a U.S. Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or someone specially
23
appointed by the Court.” Doc. 4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court granted
24
Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 8. Returning service packets to Plaintiff would be inconsistent
25
with his own request that someone else serve them. Further, the alleged noncompliance
26
has had no effect on this case. The Court did not rely on Rule 4 to issue the three orders
27
Plaintiff seeks to vacate. Docs. 37, 65, 89.
28
Plaintiff cites Rules 5(d)(2), 6(c)(1)(C), 7(b), and 78(b) for the proposition that
-2-
1
they “provide more grounds for this application and motion.”
2
Plaintiff does not explain, and the Court cannot discern, how these rules support his
3
motion.
4
5
6
Doc. 101 at 2.
But
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Derrick Johnson’s Rule 60 motion (Doc. 101) is
denied.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2018.
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?