Gray v. Prince, et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 63 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 3/27/2019. (pab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

DEANDRA GRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHARLES SAMUELS, EDNA PRINCE,
F. CABANERO, SHARONDA DOBBINSBRANCH, DUSTIN BOWDEN, FRANK
HARGROVE, SHEENA BAILEY, MARK
S. INCH, and CYNTHIA GAIA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-02346-TLP-tmp
JURY DEMAND

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff moves for default judgment against Defendants Prince, Cabanero, DobbinsBranch, and Bowden. (ECF Nos. 61 & 63.) Service of process was returned unexecuted on
these defendants. (See ECF Nos. 21, 23, 24, & 28.) The unexecuted proof of service for each
of these defendants states that they no longer work for the Federal Correctional Institution at
Memphis, Tennessee (“FCI Memphis”). (Id.) Plaintiff’s belief that these defendants were
properly served seems to come from the fact that the docket was mislabeled when the summons
were returned unexecuted.1
A federal court lacks the power to adjudicate claims against a defendant located outside
of the personal jurisdiction of the court. Boulger v. Woods, 917 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2019).

1

The docket sheet states that the summons were returned executed. (See ECF Nos. 21, 23,
24, & 28.) However, the actual filings show that they were returned unexecuted. (See id.)

“In the absence of ‘proper service of process, consent, waiver, or forfeiture, a court may not
exercise personal jurisdiction over a named defendant.’” Id. (quoting King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d
650, 655 (6th Cir. 2012)). And “actual knowledge” of a lawsuit does not cure defective service
of process. Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1155–56 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court,
therefore, may not enter default judgment against these unserved defendants. Regardless, the
Court has previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to exhaust his administrative
remedies. (See ECF No. 66.)
Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2019.
s/Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2