Ramirez 69900 v. Corizon Health ( 2019 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert Angel Ramirez, No. CV-18-00004-PHX-DWL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Joseph Brisbois, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Robert Angel Ramirez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 17 Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (Doc. 18 1), alleging inadequate medical treatment. The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered Defendants Brisbois and Barkclay to answer 20 (Doc. 7 at 9). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service no later than sixty (60) 21 days from the filing of its screening Order (Doc. 7 at 10). 22 On January 4, 2019, the Court resent to the Plaintiff a service packet for Defendant 23 Brisbois, and the Court extended the deadline for filing proof of service an additional forty- 24 five (45) days (Doc. 27 at 2). Plaintiff sent a completed service packet to the Clerk of 25 Court on February 19, 2019 (Doc. 35) which was forwarded to the United States Marshal 26 Service (“USMS”) on February 28, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Process Receipt and 27 Return was filed, noting: “Returned unexecuted—no longer w/ Corizon per Corizon 28 Liaison.” (Doc.39). 1 The Plaintiff noted in his service packet that he did not know the current address of || Defendant Brisbois, though he provided an address “from the internet.” (Doc. 35 at 1). He || related that he had previously requested in Plaintiffs “Motion of Consideration of Service, and Address of Defendant” (Doc. 26) that the Court provide Plaintiff with Defendant Brisbois’ address or order Corizon Health, Inc. to provide Defendant Brisbois’ address, || and the Court did not grant Plaintiff's request (Doc. 35 at 1). It is not the Court’s role to assist in obtaining Defendant Brisbois’ address. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F. 3d 1212, || 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for 9|| pro se litigants.”); Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)( federal judges have no 10 || obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants”)(italics in original); Barnes v. 11) United States, 241 F.2d 252 (9™ Cir. 1956)(noting pro se litigant does not have rights that arepresented litigant does not have). 13 Plaintiff has not requested additional time to serve Defendant Brisbois, and the || extended service deadline has passed. The Court has extended the time to serve for over a 15 || year. Where a prisoner fails to provide the USMS with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, a court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9" Cir. 1994) (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F. 2d 598, 603 (7™ Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other 19|| grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 20 IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff show cause NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 why Defendant Brisbois should not be dismissed from the lawsuit for failure to timely serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 23 Dated this 30th day of August, 2019. . Cay) edt 25 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 _2-