Russell v. Detroit, City of et al
ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint Against Defendants King, Flanagan, and Buchanan for Failure to Prosecute re 25 Order to Show Cause - Failure to Prosecute. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MAJOR L. RUSSELL,
Case No. 16-cv-11857
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS KING,
FLANAGAN, AND BUCHANAN FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
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 45-day
The individual defendants are John King, Sean Flanagan, James Houseworth,
Joseph English, Joseph Rinehart, Eugene Biondo, Cecilia Buchanan, and Craig
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 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.) Following the First Motion to Extend, Russell was still
unable to serve individual defendants Buchanan, Dougherty, English, Flanagan, and
King by the October 24, 2016 deadline.
On October 24, 2016, Russell filed a second motion seeking an additional 21day extension to complete service of the remaining defendants (the “Second Motion
to Extend”). (See ECF #11.) On November 2, 2016, the Court provided “one final
short extension of time” to serve the remaining defendants. (ECF #14 (emphasis
original).) The Court ordered the City to provide Russell with the current or last
known addresses of the defendants that had not been served by November 9, 2016
and then file a certificate of service. (Id.) Russell was required to serve those
defendants within ten days of the filing of the certificate of service. (Id.) The City
filed a certificate of service on November 2, 2016. (See ECF #15.)
Following that deadline, Russell had still not served three defendants: King,
Flanagan, and Buchanan. Accordingly, on July 26, 2017, this Court entered an order
for Russell to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute as to Defendants King, Flanagan, and Buchanan. (ECF #25.) The order
required Russell to file a show cause response by August 9, 2017. (Id.)
Russell did not file a response, and there is no indication in the record that
Defendants King, Flanagan, and Buchanan have been served. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Complaint against Defendants King,
Flanagan, and Buchanan for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2017
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 11, 2017, by electronic means
and/or ordinary mail.
s/ Holly A. Monda
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?