Washington, Jr. v. City of Detroit et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER granting 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Alternate Service and Extending Summons. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________
EUGENE WASHINGTON JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 18-10799

CITY OF DETROIT, RICHARD DANESCU,
and WALLACE RICHARDS,
in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ALTERNATE
SERVICE AND EXTENDING THE SUMMONS
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service and extension of
summons. (Dkt. # 12.) Despite Plaintiff’s multiple, diligent attempts to serve Defendant
Wallace Richards, his efforts at service have been unsuccessful. The court will grant
Plaintiff’s motion.
In federal court, service on an individual may be effectuated, among other
methods, by “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual
personally,” or “leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of
abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(e)(2)(A)–(B). It may also be effectuated by using state law methods of service in the
state where the district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Michigan permits service
on an individual by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant
personally, or sending a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant via
registered or certified mail. Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(A). Service is effective under this latter

1

approach “when the defendant acknowledges receipt of the mail.” Id. On a showing that
service “cannot reasonably be made as provided,” Michigan law also permits alternate
service “in any other manner reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice
of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.” Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1).
Plaintiff has made multiple attempts to serve Defendant Richards over the course
of the last month and has made coordinated efforts with Defense Counsel—all to no
avail. (Dkt. # 12, Pg. ID 71-74.) Plaintiff now asks this court to extend the summons and
allow for alternate service. The court concludes that the following alternate combined
methods of service are “reasonably calculated to give [Defendant Richards] actual
notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard,” Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1) and
thus, will permit Plaintiff to effectuate service in this way:
(1) through an attorney, Raymond Garant; and
(2) upon the City of Detroit Law Department; and
(3) through the front desk Sergeant at 1300 Beaubien (Police
Headquarters)
The court will also grant an extension of the service period, although not for the 90-day
period requested by Plaintiff. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service (Dkt. #12) is
GRANTED as specified in this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the summons expiration is hereby EXTENDED
until June 29, 2018.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 30, 2018

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 30, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

3