Vasquez-Torres v. Richmond County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 29

ORDER that Plaintiff shall fourteen days from the date of this Order to explain the reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why Defendant Ronald Strength should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4(m) to this Order for Plaintiff's perusal. Compliance due by 8/24/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 08/010/2016. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
SERGIO VASQUEZ-TORRES, aka
JAMIE CEJA,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICHMOND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT; )
JOEL DANKO, DEA-Task Force;
)
RONALD STRENGTH, Sheriff,
)
Richmond County; and ASHLEY WRIGHT, )
District Attorney,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 116-020

ORDER
_________
Plaintiff filed the above-captioned case on February 17, 2016, and because he was
proceeding pro se, the Court provided him with basic instructions regarding the development
and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 7.) The Court explained that Plaintiff is responsible
for serving Defendants and explained how service could be accomplished. (Id. at 1-3.) The
Court specifically informed Plaintiff that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), he had ninety days
from the date the complaint was filed to accomplish service and that failure to accomplish
service could result in dismissal of individual defendants or the entire case. (Id. at 4.)
However, because most of the time for service had expired by the time Plaintiff submitted
the $350.00 filing fee, the Court granted Plaintiff ninety days from April 25, 2016 to effect

service. (Id.) Now, the ninety days allowed for service has elapsed, and there is no evidence
Defendant Ronald Strength has been served.
As amended in 1993, Rule 4(m) empowers courts with discretion to extend the time
for service when a plaintiff demonstrates good cause for failing to timely serve process or
any other circumstances that warrant an extension of time. Henderson v. U.S., 517 U.S. 654,
662-63 (1996); Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005);
Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to explain the
reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why Defendant Ronald Strength should not
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. In addition, the Court
reminds Plaintiff that requesting waiver of service is distinct from personally serving
Defendants and that if Defendants do not return the waivers then he must arrange personal
service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to
attach a copy of Rule 4(m) to this Order for Plaintiff’s perusal.
SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.