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
The Court previously screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed all defendants
except Defendant Raymond Cedric Young. (Doc. 43.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion
for Service by U.S. Marshals Service. (Id. at 16.) The Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a service
packet, and Plaintiff returned the service packet, but when USMS attempted service at the
address indicated by Plaintiff, the packet was returned unexecuted. (Doc. 47.) USMS noted
that Mr. Young did not reside at the address provided by Plaintiff. (Id.)
As the Court stated in its prior Order (Doc. 55), in circumstances where a pro se
plaintiff fails to provide USMS 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. See Walker v. Summer, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court
nonetheless ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Mr. Young should not be dismissed and
afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to furnish sufficient information to effectuate service.
(Doc. 55 at 1-2.) The Court admonished Plaintiff that “[i]f Plaintiff is unable to provide the
Marshals Service with additional information allowing it to effectuate service, Defendant
Case 2:25-cv-02376-MTL Document 59 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
will be dismissed.” (Id.)
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service and for Reissuance
of Summons with Alternative Service (Doc. 56). Plaintiff requested authorization for
service by USMS upon two new addresses, or in the alternative, authorize alternative
service by electronic mail. (Id.) The Court authorized USMS to attempt service at an
additional address, denied Plaintiff’s request for alternative service as premature, and
admonished Plaintiff that “no further service attempts via USMS will be permitted absent
extraordinary circumstances.” (Doc. 57.) On April 30, 2026, service was returned
unexecuted at the new address, with the remark: “subject of process no longer lives at listed
address with no forwarding address.” (Doc. 58 at 1) (citation modified). Plaintiff has not
since filed a motion for alternative service.
Because Plaintiff has failed to provide USMS with sufficient information to effect
service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Raymond Cedric Young, the last
remaining defendant, the Court will dismiss him and close this case. See Walker, 14 F.3d
at 1421-22.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Raymond Cedric Young is
DISMISSED, without prejudice, from this action. There are no remaining Defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of
dismissal, without prejudice, and close this case.
Dated this 12th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02376-MTL Document 59 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 2