Jackson v. City of Waveland et al
Filing
40
ORDER granting 36 Motion to Review of Magistrate Judge Order; denying 37 Motion to Dismiss Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 10/22/2014 (Guirola, Louis)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARLON K. JACKSON, JR.
PLAINTIFF
v.
CAUSE NO. 1:13CV454-LG-RHW
CITY OF WAVELAND, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE ORDER AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
CLAIMS AGAINST TAMAS FILIPPI AND TRAVIS FOREMAN
BEFORE THE COURT are the Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge
Order [36] that was filed by the plaintiff, Marlon Jackson, Jr., and the Motion to
Dismiss Claims against Tamas Filippi and Travis Foreman [37] that was filed by
several defendants to this lawsuit. Jackson seeks review of the Order [33] denying
Jackson’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Process on Travis Foreman and
Tamas Filippi and mooting Jackson’s Motion to Pursue Discovery [31]. The
defendants seek dismissal of Jackson’s claims against Foreman and Filippi for
failure to timely serve process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). After reviewing the
submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion
for Review should be granted, and the Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
FACTS
Jackson claims that he was assaulted on December 9, 2010, during Waveland
Municipal Court by Waveland Police Officers Travis Foreman, David Allen, H.
Bouganim, D. Archer, and H. O’Gwin. He also alleges that Lieutenant Mac Cowand
and Officer Mary Coster failed to do anything to stop the alleged assault. (Compl.
at 6, ECF No. 1). The role of the defendant Tamas Filippi in this alleged assault is
unclear. See id. On December 9, 2013, Jackson sued these officers, as well as the
City of Waveland, the Waveland Board of City and Aldermen, the City of Bay St.
Louis1, the Bay St. Louis City Council, and the Waveland Police Department. Id.
On April 4, 2014, Jackson filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Serve
Process on Foreman, Archer, Filippi, Bouganim, and O’Gwinn. The Motion was
granted, and the deadline for service of process was extended to May 7, 2014. Just
prior to the deadline, Jackson filed his Second Motion for Extension of Time to
Serve Process on Filippi, Foreman, and O’Gwinn. The deadline was extended to
June 6, 2014. Jackson’s third Motion for an Extension of Time to Serve Process was
filed on June 4, 2014, seeking another extension of time to serve Filippi and
Foreman. He also sought permission to propound special interrogatories to the City
of Waveland in order to obtain the unserved defendants’ last known addresses. The
following day a Text Only Order was entered that reflected that the City of
Waveland and its counsel had provided all of the information in the City’s
possession concerning the whereabouts of the unserved defendants. The deadline
for service of process was extended to July 7, 2014. A fourth Motion for Extension
of Time to Serve Process on Filippi and Foreman was filed, and the deadline was
extended to August 6, 2014.
The fifth Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Process on these defendants
was filed on August 6, 2014, along with a Motion to Allow Interrogatories and/or
1
The Waveland Municipal Court was held in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
-2-
Non-Stenographic Depositions. Jackson asserted that he believed he could
ascertain the locations of Filippi and Foreman if he were permitted to propound
interrogatories on their work associates and family members. United States
Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered an Order [33] denying the Motion for
Additional Time and finding as moot the Motion to Allow Interrogatories and/or
Non-Stenographic Depositions. Judge Walker found that Jackson had not
demonstrated good cause for extending the deadline, because he had not provided
any evidence that he had made a reasonably diligent effort to serve the defendants.
DISCUSSION
“A party aggrieved by a magistrate judge’s ruling may appeal the ruling to
the assigned district judge.” Unif. Local R. 72(a)(1)(A). The Local Rules provide:
No ruling of a magistrate judge in any matter which he or she is
empowered to hear and determine will be reversed, vacated, or
modified on appeal unless the district judge determines that the
magistrate judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, or that the
magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Unif. Local R. 72(a)(1)(B). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) provides that “[a]
judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A)
where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.”
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require plaintiffs to serve the summons
and complaint on each defendant within 120 days after filing of the complaint. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m). “[W]hen a district court entertains a motion to extend time for
service, it must first determine whether good cause exists. If good cause is present,
-3-
the district court must extend time for service. If good cause does not exist, the
court may, in its discretion, decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or
extend time for service.” Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996). If the
applicable statute of limitations likely bars future litigation, a district court can
only dismiss the lawsuit if there is a “clear record of delay or contumacious conduct
by the plaintiff” and that “a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of
justice.” Milan v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 546 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2008).
Generally, at least one of the following aggravating factors must also exist: “(1)
delay caused by [the] plaintiff himself and not his attorney; (2) actual prejudice to
the defendant; or (3) delay caused by intentional conduct.” Id.
In his Motion for Review, Jackson claims that he has now determined that
Filippi is located in Okinawa, Japan, and that Filippi’s former wife may live in
Slidell, Louisiana, but Jackson argues that the Court has prevented him from
obtaining Filippi’s exact address from Filippi’s former wife through interrogatories
or a deposition. Jackson also asserts that he may be able to locate both Filippi and
Foreman if he had their social security numbers, but the Court’s denial of his
Motion to propound interrogatories to the City of Waveland prevented him from
obtaining this information.
First, it should be noted that none of this information was provided to Judge
Walker in Jackson’s Motion for Additional Time to Serve Process. Furthermore,
there is no indication that Jackson’s attorney made efforts to contact Filippi’s
former wife before asking the Court for permission to propound discovery to the
-4-
unserved defendants’ family members. Similarly, Jackson has not claimed that the
City of Waveland refused his request for the defendants’ social security numbers,
nor is there any indication that Jackson ever even sought the social security
numbers.
Jackson filed this lawsuit on the day that the statute of limitations expired,
and the lawsuit has now been pending for over ten months. Thus, the statute of
limitations would most likely bar him from refiling his claims against Foreman and
Filippi. Jackson has been provided with numerous extensions of time, but he has
been unsuccessful in serving Filippi and Foreman with process. However, at this
time, there is no evidence that this failure was the fault of Jackson himself and not
his attorney, nor is there any evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants, or
delay caused by intentional conduct. As a result, the Court finds that Jackson
should be granted one last attempt to serve process. Nevertheless, Jackson’s
requests for discovery are currently denied, because Jackson has not demonstrated,
by producing affidavits from his attorney, investigators, and/or process servers, that
he has made unsuccessful attempts to obtain information from the City of
Waveland and/or the unserved defendants’ family members. Jackson is cautioned
that the failure to properly support any future requests for additional time may be
viewed by this Court as intentional delay justifying dismissal of Jackson’s claims
against Foreman and Filippi with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Jackson’s Motion for Review of the denial of his
-5-
request for additional time to serve process is granted, and the defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss is denied. However, the defendants may file another motion to dismiss if
Jackson fails to comply with this Order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for
Review of Magistrate Judge Order [36] filed by the plaintiff, Marlon Jackson, Jr., is
GRANTED. Jackson must serve Travis Foreman and Tamas Filippi by no later
than DECEMBER 8, 2014.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to
Dismiss Claims against Tamas Filippi and Travis Foreman [37] filed by several
defendants to this lawsuit is DENIED at this time.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 22nd day of October, 2014.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?