Gray v. Sarles et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PROVIDING Plaintiff 60 days within which to identify defendants by name, amend the complaint, and provide addresses for service of process (c/m to Plaintiff 7/20/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/20/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
JIM GRAY
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. 14-2939

:
RICHARD SARLES, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff Jim Gray filed this action on September 17, 2014,
against

Richard

Sarles,

General

Manager

of

WMATA,

and

Unidentified Metro Transit Police Officers 1, 2, and 3, seeking
redress for what he claims were illegal actions taken on July
30, 2013, when he was pulled over by a WMATA police unit and
issued

citations.

By

earlier

Richard Sarles were dismissed.

decision,

the

claims

against

Plaintiff was directed to show

cause why the claims against the Unidentified Officers should
not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.4(m)
for failure to serve them within 120 days of filing suit.
Plaintiff

resists

dismissal,

asserting

that

WMATA

has

improperly failed to respond to a Maryland Public Information
Request he sent in July of 2014, and that the identities of the
three officers will be revealed at trial.

ECF No. 11.

What

Plaintiff fails to understand, however, is that there can be no

trial unless the defendants are named and properly served with
process.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) provides in part:
If a defendant is not served within 120 days
after the complaint is filed, the court—on
motion or on its own motion after notice to
the
plaintiff—must
dismiss
the
action
without prejudice against the 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.
Plaintiff has not asked for more time, but has indicated that, a
year ago, he tried to find out the names of the officers by
writing to WMATA.

He does not indicate that he has made any

other attempts to find out who they are.
record
Under

identifies
the

opportunity

one

of

circumstances,
to

identify

the

officers

Plaintiff
the

as

will

purported

be

(The state court
having
given

defendants,

ID:
one

0534.)
final

amend

the

complaint to name them, and then supply addresses for service.
Accordingly, it is this 20th
United

States

District

Court

for

ORDERED that:

2

day of July, 2015, by the
the

District

of

Maryland,

1.

Plaintiff may have 60 days within which to identify
defendants by name, amend the complaint, and provide
addresses for service of process;

2.

Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this
action without prejudice, but without further notice;
and

3.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

this

Order

to

Plaintiff and to Counsel for WMATA.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3