Allen v. City of Asheville et al
Order vacating 34 Order dismissing the Doe Defts from this action; and Pltf shall have an additional 90 days to identify and effect service on the Doe Defts. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/11/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00114-MR-DLH
CITY OF ASHEVILLE, et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Plaintiff’s Response to the
Court’s Order.” [Doc. 44].
The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the City of Asheville; Gary Jackson, the City Manager for the City of
Asheville; Tammy Hooper, the Chief of Police for the Asheville Police
Department (“APD); APD Detective Evan Flanders; and “Jane Doe” and
“John Doe,” (collectively, “Doe Defendants”), who were both identified as
APD officers. [Docs. 15, 21]. On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
an extension of time within which to serve summonses on the Doe
Defendants. [Doc. 4]. On May 31, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff an
additional 120 days to identify and serve the Doe Defendants. [Doc. 8].
On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to compel
the Defendants to identify the Doe Defendants. [Doc. 22]. The Magistrate
Judge denied the Plaintiff’s motion on January 30, 2018. [Doc. 29].
On February 14, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing the
Plaintiff to show good cause for failing to identify and serve the Doe
Defendants. [Doc. 34]. The Court advised the Plaintiff “unless good cause
is shown to the Court for his failure to effect service of the Summons and
Complaint on the Doe Defendants within fourteen (14) days from service of
this Order, the Plaintiff’s action against these Defendants shall be dismissed
without prejudice without further order.” [Id. at 2]. The 14-day period passed
without a response from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on March 6, 2018, the
Doe Defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
On March 15, 2018, the Court received the Plaintiff’s “Response to the
Court’s Order.” [Doc. 44]. Conceding the untimeliness of his Response, the
Plaintiff explains that he was in transit between Bureau of Prisons facilities
and therefore did not receive the Court’s Order until March 2, 2018. [Doc.
44 at 2]. The Plaintiff also outlines his various attempts to discern the
identities of the Doe Defendants, and he asks for additional time to continue
these efforts. [Id. at 4].
In light of the Plaintiff’s Response, the Court will vacate its Order
dismissing the Doe Defendants without prejudice, and such Defendants will
be reinstated as parties in this action. The Plaintiff shall have ninety (90)
days from the entry of this Order to identify and effect service on the Doe
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Order dismissing the Doe
Defendants from this action is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have an additional
ninety (90) days to identify and effect service on the Doe Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 11, 2018
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?