Hunter v. Goodwill Industries, SELA, Inc. - Document No. 9

Hunter v. Goodwill Industries, SELA, Inc. Doc.
9
Case 2:05-cv-02698-SSV-KWR Document 9 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARIAN HUNTER CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 05-2698
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, SELA SECTION: “R”(4)

INC.
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court, having considered the complaint, the procedural
record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge, and plaintiff's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, rules as follows.
Plaintiff Marian Hunter filed her complaint against Goodwill
Industries, SELA, on June 27, 2005. On January 26, 2006, the
Magistrate Judge ordered Hunter to show cause by February 15,
2006, as to why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure
to serve the defendant within 120 days of filing suit, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Hunter filed a motion for a
20-day extension of time to complete service, which the
Magistrate Judge granted on February 16, 2006. As of March 23,
Dockets.Justia.com
2006, Hunter had still failed to complete service, and the
Magistrate Judge again ordered her to show cause as to why her
complaint should not be dismissed. Hunter was ordered to show
cause by April 12, 2006. She never responded to this order, and
the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with prejudice on
April 13, 2006.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
She asserts that defendant has changed addresses since the suit
was filed and that the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Department is
very slow to effect service of process.
Rule 4(m) establishes the time limit for service of process.
It provides:
If service of the summons and complaint is not made

upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of
the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own
initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss
the action without prejudice as to that defendant or
direct that service be effected within a specified
time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause
for the failure, the court shall extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Thus, if a plaintiff does not make proper
service within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the
district court may either "dismiss the action without prejudice .
. . or direct that service be effected within a specified time."
Id. The second part of the rule restricts the district court's
ability to dismiss the case, making an extension of time
mandatory when plaintiff shows good cause. See Thompson v.
2
Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996). When service of process
is challenged, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving good
cause for the failure to effect timely service. See Kimble v.
Allied Physicians, LLC, 2005 WL 1038202 at *2 (E.D. La. 2005).
If the plaintiff fails to show good cause, the Court may, in its
discretion, dismiss the case without prejudice or grant a further
extension of time. Thompson, 91 F.3d at 21.
It has now been over a year since plaintiff filed suit in
this matter. She has still not served the defendant. She did
not respond at all to the Magistrate Judge's last order and has
presented no evidence to the Court of any efforts at service
since February 10, 2006. She submitted a photocopy of an
envelope sent from the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office to her
counsel, dated March 10, 2006, which she claims shows that the
summons came back due and delinquent, but she provided no
evidence of any further communications with the Orleans Parish
Sheriff's Office.
The Court finds that sufficient time has passed for
plaintiff to locate a current address for defendant and effect
service of process. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for
her inability to effect service, and she has presented no
evidence of any attempts at service since February 10, 2006.
Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge's order
suggests that she is not diligently attempting to remedy this
3
defect. The Court thus DISMISSES the matter without prejudice.
To the extent that the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal
with prejudice, the Court rejects that recommendation.
13th day of July, 2006.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____
___________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Hunter v. Goodwill Industries, SELA, Inc. - Document No. 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hunter v. Goodwill Industries, SELA, Inc. - Document No. 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hunter v. Goodwill Industries, SELA, Inc. - Document No. 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hunter v. Goodwill Industries, SELA, Inc. Doc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MARIAN HUNTER CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 05-2698

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, SELA SECTION: “R”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

The Court, having considered the complaint, the procedural

record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge, and plaintiff's objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, rules as follows.

Plaintiff Marian Hunter filed her complaint against Goodwill

Industries, SELA, on June 27, 2005. On January 26, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge ordered Hunter to show cause by February 15,

2006, as to why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure

to serve the defendant within 120 days of filing suit, as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Hunter filed a motion for a

20-day extension of time to complete service, which the

Magistrate Judge granted on February 16, 2006. As of March 23,

2006, Hunter had still failed to complete service, and the

Magistrate Judge again ordered her to show cause as to why her

complaint should not be dismissed. Hunter was ordered to show

the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with prejudice on

April 13, 2006.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

was filed and that the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Department is

very slow to effect service of process.

Rule 4(m) establishes the time limit for service of process.

If service of the summons and complaint is not made

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Thus, if a plaintiff does not make proper

service within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the

district court may either "dismiss the action without prejudice .

. . or direct that service be effected within a specified time."

ability to dismiss the case, making an extension of time

mandatory when plaintiff shows good cause. See Thompson v.

Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996). When service of process

is challenged, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving good

cause for the failure to effect timely service. See Kimble v.

Allied Physicians, LLC, 2005 WL 1038202 at *2 (E.D. La. 2005).

discretion, dismiss the case without prejudice or grant a further

extension of time. Thompson, 91 F.3d at 21.

It has now been over a year since plaintiff filed suit in

presented no evidence to the Court of any efforts at service

since February 10, 2006. She submitted a photocopy of an

envelope sent from the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office to her

summons came back due and delinquent, but she provided no

evidence of any further communications with the Orleans Parish

The Court finds that sufficient time has passed for

plaintiff to locate a current address for defendant and effect

service of process. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for

her inability to effect service, and she has presented no

evidence of any attempts at service since February 10, 2006.

Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge's order

suggests that she is not diligently attempting to remedy this

defect. The Court thus DISMISSES the matter without prejudice.

To the extent that the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal

with prejudice, the Court rejects that recommendation.

13th day of July, 2006.

You might also like