Pouncey v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 26

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that, the Court finding good cause, the time to serve the complaint is extended such that the service filed at Doc. 25 is deemed to be timely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court's August 1, 2017 Order to Show cause i s deemed to have been satisfied by Plaintiff and this Court will not dismiss this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13 ) recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to timely serve is rejected. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plain tiff's various pending motions regarding completing service (Docs. 22 , 23 and 24 ) are all denied as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/11/17. (SLQ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Touche Jamar Pouncey,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

13

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00723-PHX-JAT

Defendants.

14
It appears the Marshals have completed service on the only remaining defendant in

15
16

this case: Jorge Espinoza. (See Doc. 25). Because service has been completed,
IT IS ORDERED that, the Court finding good cause,1 the time to serve the

17
18

complaint is extended such that the service filed at Doc. 25 is deemed to be timely.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s August 1, 2017 Order to Show

20

cause is deemed to have been satisfied by Plaintiff and this Court will not dismiss this

21

case.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) recommending that this
case be dismissed for failure to timely serve is rejected.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s various pending motions regarding
completing service (Docs. 22, 23 and 24) are all denied as moot.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge

27
1

28

The Court finds Plaintiff’s error in listing Defendant’s employee number as
Defendant’s badge number to be a good faith mistake that is good cause for giving
Plaintiff an extension of time to re-attempt service. (See Doc. 22).

1

Bridget S. Bade pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for

2

all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

Dated this 11th day of September, 2017.

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

-2-