Armstead v. Bailey et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Unknown Party # 1 and Unknown Party # 2. Case terminated on 11/27/2017. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(olindor, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EDWIN G ARMSTEAD,
TRACY BAILEY, et al,
November 27, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-2486
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Edwin G. Armstead is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. On February 22, 2016, he filed a complaint alleging that he was injured when two
unidentified Corrections Officers negligently closed a door on him. The complaint also
named two supervisory officials, and a grievance officer. The latter three defendants were
The Court requested the assistance of the Texas Attorney General in identifying the
two unnamed officers. The Attorney General provided a copy of the shift roster for the
relevant date and time, but could not definitively identify the two officers.
On October 10, 2017, the Court entered an order advising Armstead that, if he was
unable to identify the Corrections Officers within 30 days, the complaint would be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants. Armstead has not responded to that
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires, upon proper notice to the
plaintiff, dismissal of a complaint with regard to any defendant who is not served within 90
days after the complaint is filed. Because the two officers have not been identified, and
therefore have not been served, the complaint must be dismissed with regard to those two
defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m).
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without
prejudice as to defendants Unknown Party # 1 and Unknown Party # 2.
SIGNED on this 27th day of November, 2017.
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States 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?