MCNEIL v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER re 6 Order to Show Cause: The claims against Defendants MICHAEL HORGAN (individually and in his capacity as a law enforcement officer), WESLEY MCCLELLAN (individually and in his capacity as a law enforcement officer), TERRANCE O'LEARY (individually and in his capacity as a Chief of Detectives), DAN ONORATO (individually and in his capacity as Executive of Allegheny County), JAMES STOCKER (individually and in his capacity as a law enforcement officer), STEPHEN A. Z APPALA, JR (individually and in his capacity as District Attorney of Allegheny County), ALLEGHENY COUNTY, and ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DETECTIVES are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/7/2011. (sps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Maurice McNeil,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Bureau of
Police – Department of Public Safety,
Nathan Harper, Allegheny County, Dan
Onorato, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr.,
Allegheny County District Attorney
Detectives, Terrance O’Leary, Carl
Schradder, William Friburger, Robert L.
Kavals, Eric J. Harper, Wesley McClellan,
Phillip Mercurio, Michael Horgan, James
Stocker,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 09-825
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
OPINION
and
ORDER OF COURT
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Maurice McNeil (“McNeil” or “Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint against Defendants
City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police – Department of Public Safety, Nathan Harper,
Allegheny County, Dan Onorato, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., Allegheny County District Attorney
Detectives, Terrance O’Leary, Carl Schradder, William Friburger, Robert L. Kavals, Eric J.
Harper, Wesley McClellan, Phillip Mercurio, Michael Horgan, and James Stocker, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County on or about May 29, 2009. (Docket No. 1, Ex. A). On
June 24, 2009, Defendants City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police – Department of
Public Safety, and Nathan Harper (“City Defendants”) removed the case to this Court. (Docket
No. 1). On July 6, 2009, the City Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint and Affirmative
Defenses. (Docket No. 2).
On October 31, 2011, Defendants City of Pittsburgh Police Officers, Carl Shradder
(Carlos Shrader), William Friburger, Robert L. Kavals, Eric J. Harper (Harpster), and Phillip
Mercurio (“Officer Defendants”), filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(5) arguing that
Plaintiff failed to serve sufficient process on them. (Docket No. 3). At a status conference held
in this case on November 7, 2011 (Docket No. 4), Plaintiff’s counsel agreed that the only service
made was on the City Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel also represented to the Court that he is
currently unable to locate Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not file any response to the Motion to Dismiss.
On November 21, 2011, I granted the Officer Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the Officer Defendants from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 5). On that same date, I also issued an Order to
Show Cause why Defendants Allegheny County, Dan Onorato, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr.,
Allegheny County District Attorney Detectives, Terrance O’Leary, Wesley McClellan, Michael
Horgan, and James Stocker (“County Defendants”) should not be dismissed for failure to serve
pursuant to Rule 4(m). (Docket No. 6). The Order to Show cause directed Plaintiff to respond
by November 29, 2011; however, Plaintiff failed to do so. For the reasons set forth below the
County Defendants will be dismissed.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the time limits for service of a
complaint and provides, in relevant part:
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 plaintiff – must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend
the time for service for an appropriate period. . . .
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In this case, I served upon Plaintiff a Rule to Show Cause why the County
Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). As set forth above,
Plaintiff failed to respond to my Order. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged at the
November 7, 2011 status conference that service in this case was made only on the City
Defendants. Because Plaintiff is well outside Rule 4(m)’s 120-day deadline for service, and
because Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for this failure of service, all claims against the
County Defendants must be dismissed without prejudice.
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Maurice McNeil,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Bureau of
Police – Department of Public Safety,
Nathan Harper, Allegheny County, Dan
Onorato, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr.,
Allegheny County District Attorney
Detectives, Terrance O’Leary, Carl
Schradder, William Friburger, Robert L.
Kavals, Eric J. Harper, Wesley McClellan,
Phillip Mercurio, Michael Horgan, James
Stocker,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 09-825
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2011, it is ordered that the above-captioned action
against Defendants Allegheny County, Dan Onorato, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., Allegheny County
District Attorney Detectives, Terrance O’Leary, Wesley McClellan, Michael Horgan, and James
Stocker, is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior U.S. District Judge
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?