Holt v. Howard
ORDER directing the Clerk to prepare a summons for deft Howard, in her official capacity, and the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons, complaint, and this Order on the Little Rock City Manager without prepayment of fees. The 6 Motion to Dismiss i s denied without prejudice, and the 8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply is denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/27/12. (kpr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2012: # 1 Main Document - Correct and docket text modified to correct the file date and the signature date.) (thd).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Public Information Officer,
Little Rock Police Department,
in her official capacity only
In its prior Order, Document No.3, the Court directed the United States
Marshal to serve a summons and Holt's complaint" on her," referring to the
Defendant, Ms. Howard. The United States Marshal accordingly served the
papers on the individual Ms. Michelle Howard at the Little Rock Police
Department, located at 700 West Markham Street. As Howard correctly
points out in her motion to dismiss, Document No. 6, service should have been
made on the Little Rock City Manager because the claims are made against
Howard in her official capacity. FED. R. CIV. P. 40). But the time to effect
proper service has not yet elapsed, and the Court can still correct its error.
This is not Holt's fault.
On its own motion, the Court directs the Clerk to prepare a summons
for Howard, in her official capacity, and the United States Marshal must serve
the summons, complaint, and this Order on the Little Rock City Manager
without prepayment of fees and costs or security.
Howard's motion to dismiss, Document No. 6, is denied without
prejudice; and Holt's motion for more time to reply, Document No.8, is denied
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?