Cooper et al v. City of Starke, Florida et al
Filing
52
ORDER granting 42 Motion to quash service of process; granting 44 Motion to quash service of process. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 6/24/2011. (BEE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Lemuel Cooper, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 3:10-cv-280-J-34MCR
City of Starke, Florida, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of
Process (Docs. 42, 44) filed June 13, 2011 and June 17, 2011.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 1, 2011, (Docs. 34, 36),
which was stricken by the Court on April 6, 2011, (Doc. 35), because Plaintiffs neither
obtained leave of court by motion or consent of the parties. Plaintiffs subsequently
obtained consent of the then-served Defendants on April 11, 2011. (Doc. 37).
On April 25, 2011, the Clerk of Court issued summonses for newly named
defendants including, the Florida Department of Corrections, its former Secretary,
Walter A. McNeil, Union Correctional Institute (“UCI”), Reception and Medical Center
Work Camp (“RMC-WC”), Colonel Scott Stewart, Officer Richard Shuler, Officer Bobby
Adams, Officer Stephen Henley, and Officer Jason Polk.
-1-
The summons issued for the Florida Department of Corrections designates the
Department of Corrections’ Agency Clerk to be served. (Doc. 42-A). On May 20, 2011,
the summons and complaint were served on Agency Clerk, Katie Zimmer. (Doc. 42-B).
The summons issued for Defendant McNeil, former secretary of the Florida
Department of Corrections, directed that he be served c/o the Department of
Corrections’ Central Office. (Doc. 42-C). On May 20, 2011, the summons and
complaint were left at the Office of General Counsel for the Department of Corrections
with attorney Paul Martin. (Doc. 42-D).
The summons issued for UCI designates Linda Clance, a Correctional Sentence
Specialist at UCI, to be served. (Doc. 44-A). On May 25, 2011, the summons and
complaint were served on Ms. Clance. (Doc. 44-D). The summons issued for the
RMC-WC designates the Warden, Brian Reidle, who is in charge of the facility to be
served. (Doc. 44-B). However, the summons and complaint were served upon Stasi
McKenzie, a staff assistant in the administrative offices of the institution. (Doc. 44-F).
The summonses issued for individual Defendants Stewart, Shuler, Adams,
Henley, and Polk, designate that each is to be served individually at their respective
places of employment. (Doc. 44-C). However, the summonses and complaints for
Defendants Henley and Polk were served on Ms. Clance and summonses and
complaints for Defendants Stewart, Shuler, and Adams were served on Ms. McKenzie.
(Doc. 44-C).
Defendants filed Motions to Quash Service as to each of the above-named
defendants for failure to accomplish proper service. (Docs. 42, 44). Plaintiffs filed their
-2-
responses in opposition to Defendants’ Motions. (Doc. 47, 48). Accordingly, this matter
is now ripe for judicial determination.
II.
ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2), proper service may be
accomplished by “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the
individual personally,” “leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place
of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there,” or “delivering
a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process.” Where service is “insufficient but curable,” courts “generally should quash the
service and give the plaintiff an opportunity to re-serve the defendant.” Gregory v.
United States, 942 F.2d 1498, 1500 (10th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted). The Court will
address service for each of the defendants at issue.
A.
Service on the Florida Department of Corrections
With regard to service on the Florida Department of Corrections, Plaintiffs served
the department’s Agency Clerk, Ms. Zimmer. This is improper. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), “[a] state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created
governmental organization that is subject to suit must be served by: (A) delivering a
copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or (B) serving a
copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state’s law for serving a summons or like
process on such a defendant.” State law requires that complaints against a state
agency be served upon the agency head – in this case, current Secretary Edwin Buss.
See § 48.111, Fla. Stat. (2010). Additionally, the Agency Clerk does not stand in the
-3-
shoes of the Secretary for purposes of civil litigation. Rather, the Agency Clerk has
functions that only relate to filings in administrative proceedings and maintenance of
final orders of the agency under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Since Plaintiffs have not
complied with the requirements of Rule 4(j)(2), service is improper on the Florida
Department of Corrections.
As noted above, where service is insufficient, courts generally quash the service
and give the plaintiff an opportunity to re-serve the defendant. See Gregory, 942 F.2d
1500. Therefore, the Florida Department of Corrections shall be properly served no
later than Friday, July 8, 2011.
B.
Service on Defendant McNeil
With regard to service on former secretary of the Florida Department of
Corrections Defendant McNeil, service was left at the Office of General Counsel for the
Department of Corrections with attorney Mr. Martin. (Doc. 42-D). This is improper. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize leaving the summons and complaint
with anyone at a former place of business. Additionally, the department’s attorneys are
not authorized to accept service on behalf of Mr. McNeil in his individual capacity.
According to the complaint, Mr. McNeil is being sued for damages in his individual
capacity. (Doc. 36, p. 3). Therefore, Mr. Martin does not have authority to accept
service for Mr. McNeil in his individual capacity regarding a claim for damages against
him personally. Accordingly, Defendant McNeil shall be properly served no later than
Friday, July 8, 2011.
-4-
C.
Service on Defendants UCI and RMC-WC
With regard to service on UCI, Plaintiffs served Ms. Clance, a correctional
specialist at the institution. With regard to service on RMC-WC, Plaintiffs served Ms.
McKenzie, a staff assistant in the administrative offices of the institution. This is
improper. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), “[a] state, a municipal
corporation, or any other state-created governmental organization that is subject to suit
must be served by: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its
chief executive officer; or (B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that
state’s law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant.” State law
requires that complaints against a public agency be served upon the agency head – in
this case, for UCI and for the RMC-WC, the Warden in charge of each respective
facility. See § 48.111(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). Ms. Clance and Ms. KcKenzie do not have
authority to accept service for the Warden of the facility. See (Doc. 44-E). Therefore,
Defendants UCI and RMC-WC shall be properly served no later than Friday, July 8,
2011.
D.
Service on Defendants Stewart, Shuler, Adams, Henley, and Polk
Ms. Clance and Ms. McKenzie were served on behalf of the above-named
individual defendants. This is improper. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
authorize leaving a copy with any person at a place of business, and the Department of
Corrections’ policy on service of process does not authorize this type of service. See
(Doc. 44-E). Therefore, Ms. Clance and Ms. McKenzie do not have authority to accept
-5-
service for these individuals defendants. Accordingly, Defendants Stewart, Shuler,
Adams, Henley, and Polk shall be properly served no later than Friday, July 8, 2011.1
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after due consideration it is
ORDERED:
Defendants Motions to Quash Service of Process (Docs. 42, 44) are GRANTED2
as provided in the body of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 24th day of
June, 2011.
MONTE C. RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Party
1
The Court notes that it has considered Plaintiffs arguments regarding the appropriateness
of each of the services at issue. (Docs. 47, 48). Although convincing in some respects, in an
abundance of caution, the Court directs that the parties be re-served.
2
This Court’s ruling is limited to Defendants’ Motions to Quash, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss will be addressed by separate order.
-6-
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?