White v. Arkansas Department of Human Services et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying without prejudice Defendants' 10 Motion. White's motion for a directed verdict, 12 is denied because she failed to serve the defendants within 120 days after she filed her complaint. The Court reopens and extends White� 39;s time for service until 14 September 2015. If she does not complete good service by then, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. White must also file proof of service, so the Court will know what she has done. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/17/2015. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
ROBERTA WHITE

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:14-cv-311-DPM

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES and CINDY
ROWLETT, Area Director

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Defendants' motion, NQ 10, is denied without prejudice, though service
was defective and must be re-done. White's motion for a directed verdict, NQ
12, is denied because she failed to serve the defendants within 120 days after

she filed her complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). After the deadline, she tried to
serve, but she didn't do so correctly. She didn't serve the Director of the
Arkansas Department of Human Services. FED. R. CIV. P. 40)(2). Though
White is pro se, she must still follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852,856 (8th Cir. 1996).
In the circumstances, the Court reopens and extends White's time for
service until14 September 2015. If she does not complete good service by
then, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. White must also file proof
of service, so the Court will know what she has done.

White's Title VII claim may be time-barred because she does not appear
to have filed her complaint within ninety days of receiving her right-to-sue
letter from the EEOC. NQ 2 at 2; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The Court can't
reach this issue until there's good service. If the federal claim is untimely,
then only a State court would have subject matter jurisdiction over White's
remaining Arkansas Whistle Blower Act claim because the State has not
waived sovereign immunity. ARK. CODE ANN. § 21-1-604; Faibisch v. University

of Minnesota, 304 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2002).
So Ordered.

n.P.Mai'Shanf
United States District Judge

-2-