Doe v. Mayfield et al

Filing 4

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 4(m) AND RULE 41(b). Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on June 24, 2015. (AA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN DOE

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:13-cv-235-DCB-MTP

CHUCK MAYFIELD; ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT; KAREN EWING; ADAMS COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI, ALBERT SANTA CRUZ; MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; and JAMES DOES
Nos. 1-10

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This

cause

is

before

the

Court

sua

sponte

upon

the

plaintiff’s, John Doe, failure to serve process upon all Defendants
and to otherwise comply with the Court’s order of April 20, 2015.
Having reviewed the entire record in this matter, applicable
statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully informed in the
premises, the Court finds as follows:
On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff John Doe1 filed his complaint
in this Court, alleging constitutional violations, Section 983
claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasions of
privacy, tortious interference, defamation, and civil conspiracy.
Summons was issued as to all defendants on December 18, 2013. By
order entered April 20, 2015, the Court directed that the unserved

1

Plaintiff has chosen to remain anonymous because of the
nature of claims alleged.
1

defendants be served by May 20, 2015. Order, ECF No. 3.
A review of the docket reflects that Doe did not have process
served as required by the order, has not demonstrated any good
cause

for

further

delay,

and

has

not

asked

for

or

received

additional time to effect service of process.
Thus, some six months after the original filing of this
complaint,

Doe

has

not

served

process

on

any

defendant.

In

addition, he has failed to comply with the Court’s prior order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides: If a defendant is
not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court
- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must
dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant. . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). As Doe failed to serve process in compliance
with the rule and by the deadline given by the Court in its order
extending the time for service, dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate under Rule 42.
Additionally, pursuant to Rule 41(b), a trial court has
discretionary authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for the
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with any order of the
court. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962);
Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). The power of
the courts “to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to

2

All references in this opinion are to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
2

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to .
. . clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant
because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking
relief

.

.

.

so

as

to

achieve

the

orderly

and

expeditious

disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 629-31; see also Lopez v.
Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)
(discussing trial court’s rule 41(b) discretionary authority).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Chuck Mayfield; Adams
County Sheriff Department; Karen Ewing; Adams County, Mississippi;
Albert Santa Cruz; Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and
James Does Nos. 1-10 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to
Rules 4(m) and 41(b).
A final judgment in accordance with Rule 58 will follow.

SO ORDERED this the 24th day of June 2015.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3