Wright v. Garber et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 2/19/14; The 21-day period has passed without any response by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order for failure to comply with Rule 4(m)s service requirement. cc:Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-683-H
HONORABLE ELEANOR GARBER et al.
On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Darrin Wright filed a pro se action against several individuals
he claims conspired against him in a state family court proceeding.1 On July 9, 2013, the Clerk
of Court received Wright’s $400 fee for filing this civil action; issued summonses for all
Defendants; and mailed the issued summonses to Wright for service. The record reflects,
however, that no summonses have been returned executed (or otherwise) for any of the
According to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the
court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period. . . .
Using the date the filing fee was paid as the starting point to calculate the 120-day service
period, the period expired on November 6, 2013.
Wright titles his initiating document a “Petition for Writ of Prohibition/Petition for Writ
of Mandamus” and alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and several state laws.
Due to this apparent lack of service, by Memorandum and Order entered January 17,
2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause for his failure to comply with Rule
4(m)’s 120-day service requirement. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond
within 21 days from entry of the Memorandum and Order would result in dismissal of the
action as to all Defendants.
The 21-day period has passed without any response by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss this action by separate Order for failure to comply with Rule 4(m)’s service
February 19, 2014
Plaintiff, pro se
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?