White v. Arkansas Department of Human Services et al
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
OF HUMAN SERVICES and CINDY
ROWLETT, Area Director
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).
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?