Knightshed v. State of Louisiana et al

Filing 19

RULING denying 15 Motion to Dismiss... The Court will extend the time for service of process thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling. Plaintiff is to properly serve Defendants. If they have indeed been properly served, then Plaintiff will put evidence of such into the record. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 06/20/2012. (KDC)

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RONALD KNIGHTSHED
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-610-JJB-SCR
STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CORRECTIONS, WARDEN
(FNU) DELANEY, BURL CAIN,
CAPTAIN JOHN SANDERS
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
(doc. 15). Plaintiff filed an opposition (doc. 18) to which Defendants did not file a
reply. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For
the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED and Plaintiff is ordered to
correct the deficiencies in service of process.
Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. Prior to
the incident that led to this lawsuit he filed an administrative complaint against a
deputy warden, Defendant Delaney (“Delaney”). The complaint alleged Delaney
falsely accused Plaintiff of stealing items from the metal shop. Among other
things, this would have jeopardized his status as a prison trusty. As a result of
this complaint, Plaintiff alleges Delaney threatened him with violence by “his
people” if Plaintiff did not withdraw the complaint. That same evening, Plaintiff’s
cell was subjected to a routine search. The procedure of the search requires the
inmate to be handcuffed to the cell bars. As he was being shackled, Plaintiff

alleges Defendant Sanders (“Sanders”) approached and sprayed a chemical
agent in his eyes, causing various injuries. Plaintiff claims the guard shackling
him to the cell also was sprayed. The guard later died; Plaintiff claims as a result
of this chemical.

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages

stemming from this incident. Defendants bring this motion alleging they were not
properly served within 120 days of the filing of this suit. They seek dismissal due
to this defect under Rules 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Rule 4(m) states, in pertinent part, “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In their memorandum, Defendants cite only the “must dismiss without
prejudice” language without the conjunctive clause. (Doc. 15-1 at 2). Then, in
their conclusion, they “move this Court to dismiss this complaint with prejudice
and at plaintiff’s cost.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court is disturbed in two
ways: 1) that Defendants’ counsel would selectively—and deceptively—state the
law; and 2) ask the Court to exceed the remedy provided by the rule. Rather than
think counsel would intentionally seek to have the law misapplied, the Court will
2

instead chalk it up to a lack of familiarity with Rule 4. Counsel is encouraged to
be more careful in the future.
The Fifth Circuit has held that “the plain language of rule 4(m) broadens a
district’s court’s discretion by allowing it to extend the time for service even when
plaintiff fails to show good cause.” Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir.
1996).
Defendants do not specify how service or the process served was
deficient, but it appears as though the summons was not properly signed by the
clerk of court.

Plaintiff now claims, and Defendants do not dispute, that

Defendants have as of this time been properly served.

Neither party discusses

whether good cause exists for this seeming defect in the summons. Defendants
note that “the record is devoid of any evidence that the defendants have been
properly served.” (Doc. 15-1 at 2).
The Court will extend the time for service of process thirty (30) days from
the date of this ruling. Plaintiff is to properly serve Defendants. If they have
indeed been properly served, then Plaintiff will put evidence of such into the
record. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 20, 2012.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
3

4