Jerald #351198 v. Nanos 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
Evan McCarrick Jerald,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Christopher Nanos, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 24-363-TUC-CKJ
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Clarification Regarding [the Court's
February 17, 2026] Order (Doc. 118) filed by Plaintiff Evan McCarrick Jerald ("Jerald").
On February 17, 2026, this Court ordered Jerald to destroy the documents
inadvertently provided by non-party NaphCare, Inc. ("NaphCare") (i.e., subparts (c) and (d)
Subpoena to Produce Documents, to wit: all documents provided by NaphCare which include
private address information, copies of such documents, and any and all documents/records
of the information contained within those documents) and to file an affidavit or verified
statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2) with the Court confirming the inadvertently
disclosed documents, all copies of the disclosed documents, and any and all records of the
information contained within those documents have been destroyed.
Jerald asserts that, prior to the Court's Order, he returned the documents to NaphCare
in response to NaphCare's request. Jerald has filed a verified statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1746(2) confirming the return of the inadvertently disclosed documents, any copies of the
inadvertently disclosed documents, and any records that may have included information from
Case 4:24-cv-00363-CKJ Document 127 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 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
1Jerald also states he did not copy the inadvertently disclosed documents or record the
information contained within the inadvertently disclosed documents and is no longer in
possession of information contained within the inadvertently disclosed documents.
2All served defendants except Naphcare Registered Nurse Dagmar R. Rose, have filed
an Answer.
- 2 -
the inadvertently disclosed documents.1 Jerald asserts he is unable to destroy such documents
because they have already been returned to NaphCare.
NaphCare has not disputed Jerald's assertions. The Court accepts Jerald's statements
and finds he is in compliance with the Court's February 17, 2026, Order.
Status of Case
The Court has issued numerous orders in this case extending the deadline to complete
service of process and seeking to assist Jerald in completing service of process (e.g., ordering
defense attorney to provide identification and address information). (Docs. 31, 36, 40, 53,
87, 95, 105). The efforts to assist in service of process extended past the December 29, 2025,
deadline to complete service, Doc. 105, by directing the Clerk of Court preparing and
forwarding service packets to the U.S. Marshal Service. February 3, 2026, Order (Doc. 112).
Despite the efforts of Jerald and this Court, the following Defendants remain unserved:
Gilbert Astorga, Gabriel Ruiz, Maritza R. Vargas, and Nichole N. Boyd.2 Jerald has not
sought to extend the service deadline to complete service of process on these unserved
Defendants.
Additionally, deadlines included in the Court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Case Management
Scheduling Order have been extended at the request of the parties, with a current deadline
of May 28, 2026, for the filing of dispositive motions. See Sept. 26, 2025, Order (Doc. 101).
In light of (1) there being no request for additional time to complete service of process
having been made by Jerald, (2) the Court having advised Jerald the failure to complete
service of process upon a defendant may result in dismissal, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (sua
sponte dismissal without prejudice after notice to plaintiff), (3) no apparent available options
Case 4:24-cv-00363-CKJ Document 127 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 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
- 3 -
to complete service of process of the unserved defendants, and (4) the impending deadline
for the filing of dispositive motions, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the unserved
Defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	The Motion for Clarification Regarding [the Court's February 17, 2026] Order
(Doc. 118) is GRANTED. The Court accepts Jerald's verified statement as compliance with
the Court's Order.
2. 	Defendants Gilbert Astorga, Gabriel Ruiz, Maritza R. Vargas, and Nichole N.
Boyd are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action.
DATED this 26th day of May, 2026.
Case 4:24-cv-00363-CKJ Document 127 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 3