Muhammad v. Jones et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying 62 Plaintiff's Motion for reimbursement of service expenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey on 3/12/2019. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

AKEEM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-cv-212-J-25JBT

JULIE JONES, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reimbursement of
Service Expenses (Doc. 62; Motion). Plaintiff seeks reimbursement
of service expenses for Defendants Andrews, Sellers, McGregor,
Jones, and Frambo. See Motion at 1-2. He asserts he properly served
each Defendant with a notice of the lawsuit, a request to waive
service of a summons, a copy of the Complaint, and a self-addressed
stamped

envelope,

in

compliance

with

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 4(d)(2). Defendants refused to waive service. Id. at 2.
Defendants

have

responded

to

Plaintiff’s

Motion

(Doc.

82;

Response). They concede Plaintiff “has complied substantially with
the Federal Rules,” but assert they had good cause to refuse
Plaintiff’s request to waive service. Id. at 3-4.
Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be
denied, though not for the reason advanced by Defendants. Rule
4(d) applies to individuals subject to service under Rule 4(e),

(f), or (h). Because Plaintiff sues Defendants in their individual
and official capacities, see Amended Complaint (Doc. 32), they are
subject to service under Rule 4(j) (serving a state government).
See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)
(recognizing that a suit against an official in his official
capacity is “no different from a suit against the State itself”).
Rule 4(d) is inapplicable when a defendant is subject to
service

under

subdivision

(j).

The

Advisory

Committee

Notes

explaining Rule 4 (1993 Amendment) emphasize that a “waiver of
service may be sent only to defendants subject to service under
subdivision

(e),

(f),

or

(h),”

and

“[t]he

waiver-of-service

provision is … inapplicable to actions against governments subject
to service” under subdivision (j). See also Moore v. Hosemann, 591
F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2009) (joining other jurisdictions and
holding a state officer sued in his official capacity is subject
to service under Rule 4(j)); Cupe v. Lantz, 470 F. Supp. 2d 136,
138 (D. Conn. 2007) (recognizing Rule 4(d)’s waiver provision is
inapplicable

to

state

employees

sued

in

their

official

capacities).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff sought waiver of service from
Defendants who are not subject to the waiver requirement, his
Motion for Reimbursement of Service Expenses (Doc. 62) is DENIED.

2

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 7th day of
March, 2019.

Jax-6
c:
Akeem Muhammad
Counsel of Record

3