Russell v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Summons, and Requiring Defendants to Provide Last Known Addresses of Unserved Individual Defendants. (Response due by 11/9/2016) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MAJOR L. RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-11857
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,
Defendant(s).
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND SUMMONS (ECF #11) AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSES OF
UNSERVED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff Major L. Russell (“Russell”) filed a complaint
against the City of Detroit (the “City”) and eight individual defendants1 (the
“Complaint”). (See ECF #1.) Russell claims that the Defendants discriminated
against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and retaliated against him in violation
of the First Amendment. (See id. at 8-9, Pg. ID 8-9.)
Russell successfully served the City of Detroit with the Summons and the
Complaint, but he was not able to serve the eight individual defendants within the
90-day period set forth in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See
ECF #7 at 2, Pg. ID 50.) On September 1, 2016, he filed a motion seeking a 451

The individual defendants are John King, Sean Flanagan, James Houseworth,
Joseph English, Joseph Rinehart, Eugene Biondo, Cecilia Buchanan, and Craig
Dougherty.
1

day extension in which to serve the individual defendants (the “First Motion to
Extend”). (See ECF #7.)

In the First Motion to Extend, Russell’s counsel

(“Counsel”) explained that he has an ongoing and serious illness that has prevented
him from timely completing service. (See id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 51.) The Court granted
the First Motion to Extend, allowing Russell until October 24, 2016 to serve the
individual defendants. (See ECF #10 at 3-4, Pg. ID 89-90.) Russell has now
successfully served individual defendants Biondo, Houseworth, and Rinehart. (See
ECF #11 at 2, Pg. ID 92.) However, Russell was unable to serve individual
defendants Buchanan, Dougherty, English, Flanagan, and King (collectively, the
“Unserved Defendants.”) by the October 24, 2016 deadline. Russell now files a
motion seeking an additional 21-day extension to complete service of the Unserved
Defendants (the “Second Motion to Extend”).2
In its order granting the First Motion to Extend, the Court identified five
factors that guide its discretion in determining whether to extend the time for
service. (See ECF #10 at 3, Pg. ID 89.) Here, the Court concludes that the same
factors weigh in favor of one final short extension of time in which to complete

2

The City opposes the Second Motion to Extend. (See ECF #13.) The City argues
that Russell’s requested extension would prejudice all defendants by delaying the
progress of this action, that Russell is operating in bad faith, and that any prejudice
to Plaintiff is self-inflicted. (See id. at 3-5, Pg. ID 56-58.) The Court does not
believe that this last and final short extension will unduly or unfairly prejudice any
of the Defendants.
2

service of the Unserved Defendants, but the Court does not conclude that a full 21day extension is warranted.
Accordingly the Second Motion to Extend is GRANTED IN PART as
follows. The Court ORDERS the City to provide to counsel for Russell, by
electronic mail, the current or last known addresses (the “Addresses”) of the
Unserved Defendants by November 9, 2016.3 Once the City has provided the
Addresses, it shall file a certificate of service with the Court indicating that it has
done so. The Court extends the deadline for serving the Summons and Complaint
on the Unserved Defendants to the tenth day following the City’s service of the
Addresses.4 In all other respects, Russell’s Second Motion to Extend is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

The City would be required to provide Russell with the Addresses during
discovery because the Unserved Defendants are potentially relevant witnesses. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The Court is exercising its authority to expedite the disclosure
process by ordering the City to provide the Addresses by November 7, 2016.
4

This extension does not permit Russell to have any additional days under Rule
6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 2, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Amanda Chubb (in the absence of Holly A. Monda)
Case Manager
[phone]

4