United States of America v. Letts

Filing 4

ORDER 3 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE re 1 Complaint and Directing Government to Show Cause. (Show Cause Response due by 6/6/2014). Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-10359
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
TIFFANY L. LETTS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
AND DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO SHOW CAUSE
On January 24, 2014, the United States filed a civil complaint against Tiffany Letts,
alleging that Letts owes over three thousand dollars in past-due debt. See Pl.’s Compl. 1, ECF
No. 1. A summons was issued for Letts on January 27, 2014, but since that date there has been
no action in the case—until now. On May 21, 2014, the government filed a motion to extend the
time for serving the summons and a copy of the complaint. The motion will be denied, and the
government will be ordered to show cause why proper service has not been achieved.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a court, “on motion or on its own after notice
to the plaintiff,” to dismiss an action without prejudice if “a defendant is not served within 120
days after the complaint is filed . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Of course, the Rule allows a
plaintiff to “show[] good cause for the failure,” in which case “the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.”

Id.

Establishing good cause is the government’s

responsibility in this case and “necessitates a demonstration of why service was not made within
the time constraints.” Nafziger v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 467 F.3d 514, 521 (6th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Habib v. Gen. Motors Corp., 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994)).

The government filed its motion to extend the time limits for service 117 days after filing
the complaint; thus, at the time the government filed the motion, the window for service
provided by Rule 4 had yet to close. In the motion, the government indicates that it “acted
diligently in attempting to properly serve” Letts. Pl.’s Mot. 2, ECF No. 3. To that end, the
government merely claims that upon issuance it “immediately placed the Summons and
Complaint in the hands of its process server.” Id. at 1. The government then vaguely alleges
that it “has been unable to serve [Letts]. All attempts to serve [Letts] have been unsuccessful.”
Id. The government does not say why.
The government does indicate that it “has possibly located the current address for [Letts]
and attempts are being made.” Id. Attempts at what remains unclear, but the Court presumes the
government means attempts are now being made to serve Letts at the newly-discovered address.
But with its motion the government made no attempt, however minor, to “demonstrate[e]
. . . why service was not made within the time constraints.” Indicating that service has not been
achieved simply will not suffice.

So the government has not satisfied its burden of

demonstrating good cause for its failure to effectuate proper service. See Walker v. Donahoe,
528 F. App’x 439, 441 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal, without prejudice, where plaintiff
“gave no valid reason to explain her failure to complete service” and therefore “had not
established good cause to excuse her failure”).
Notably, the Court is not yet able to dismiss this case on its own.

For that, the

government must have previously received notice of the Court’s intention to do so. So let this
Order do just that; the government is on notice that if it does not show cause why proper service
was not achieved, this case will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).

-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government’s motion to extend the time for
service, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the government is DIRECTED to show cause, in writing,
good cause for its failure to effectuate proper service. This is due no later than June 6, 2014. If
the government fails to show cause by that date, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: May 28, 2014

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the
foregoing order was served upon each attorney
or party of record herein by electronic means or
first class U.S. mail on May 28, 2014.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-3-