Kelly v. Young et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
David E Kelly,
Plaintiff,
v.
Raymond Cedric Young, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02376-PHX-MTL
ORDER
I.
The Court previously screened Plaintiff’s complaint and granted Plaintiff’s Motion
for Service by U.S. Marshals Service. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff timely returned the service packet
to the Clerk of Court, but when USMS attempted service, the packet was returned as
unexecuted. (Doc. 47.) The Marshals Service noted that Defendant Raymond Young did
not reside at the address provided by Plaintiff. (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides a 90-day deadline to effectuate
service after the complaint is filed absent a showing of good cause. But where a pro se
plaintiff fails to provide the Marshals Service with accurate and sufficient information to
effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the
unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker v. Summer, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir.
1994). The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant
should not be dismissed from this action for failure to serve process. If Plaintiff is unable
to provide the Marshals Service with additional information allowing it to effectuate
Case 2:25-cv-02376-MTL Document 55 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
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
service, Defendant will be dismissed.
II.
The Court now addresses the three motions Plaintiff filed on the same day that the
Court issued its previous order. (Docs. 44-46.)
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44). In this Court’s prior
order, the Court denied three motions for summary judgment as premature. (Doc. 43.) The
Court denies the present motion pursuant to the authorities cited in its prior order. (Id. at
14.) Plaintiff is admonished that the Court will summarily strike any further motions for
summary judgment filed before the commencement of discovery.
Plaintiff also filed an Emergency Motion for U.S. Marshal Enforcement (Doc. 45).
The motion asks for extraordinary relief, including the “[i]mmediate . . . apprehension of
Raymond Cedric Young” and the “[g]arnishment of all accounts held by any Defendant.”
(Id.) Plaintiff lists legal authority, but none of it supports Plaintiff’s conclusion that such
extraordinary relief is warranted. (Id.) And even if the cited authority is relevant, Plaintiff
does not explain how. (Id.); see Green v. LeGrand, No. 2:14-cv-01388-APG-NJK, 2017
WL 574379, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2017) (“A federal court is not required to construct
legal arguments for a pro se plaintiff”) (citation modified). Accordingly, the Court will
deny the motion (Doc. 45).
Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Register and Enforce State Court Judgment
(Doc. 46). Plaintiff’s “motion is made under 28 U.S.C. § 1963” and “moves this Court for
an Order registering and enforcing the final judgment entered in Maricopa County Superior
Court.” (Id.) But “28 U.S.C. § 1963 does not allow federal courts to enforce state-court
judgments.” Griffith v. Paran LLP, No. 2:21-cv-01397-GMN-BNW, 2022 WL 409725, at
*2 (D. Nev. Feb. 10, 2022) (citation omitted). The motion (Doc. 46) will be denied.
III.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause no later than March 2, 2026, why
Defendant Raymond Cedric Young should not be dismissed from this action for failure to
serve process.
Case 2:25-cv-02376-MTL Document 55 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 44) is DENIED. The Court will summarily strike any further motions for summary
judgment that are filed before the commencement of discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for U.S. Marshal
Enforcement (Doc. 45) is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Register and Enforce State
Court Judgment (Doc. 46) is DENIED.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02376-MTL Document 55 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 3