Donovan v. Buchanan County Sherriff's Office et al
OPINION and ORDER granting 3 Request for Extension for Service of Process and the plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of entry of this order to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants in a manner provided by the law. Signed by Senior Judge James P. Jones on 10/5/21. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(ejs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CODY J. DONOVAN,
) Case No. 1:21CV00005
) OPINION AND ORDER
) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES
BUCHANAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, ET AL.,
Plaintiff Cody J. Donovan, proceeding pro se, requests that the time for
service of process be extended after he failed to serve the defendants within the
statutory 90-day time period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Because the
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the statute of limitations might bar the plaintiff’s
action if an extension were not granted, I will grant the plaintiff’s motion.
On January 19, 2021, Donovan filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint alleges that the defendants — Buchanan County Sheriff’s Office, Grundy
Police Department, Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Chief Aaron
Fletcher of the Grundy Police Department, and Former Deputy Shannon McCoy and
Deputy Sgt. Brandon Hall of the Buchanan County Sheriff’s Office — are liable for
intentionally and willfully subjecting him to unlawful use of force, failing to provide
adequate medical care, and false arrest and false imprisonment in violation of his
constitutional rights. The events that gave rise to these claims occurred on or about
January 21, 2019.
Donovan filed his complaint on January 19, 2021.
Upon filing of the
complaint, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Donovan was required to obtain
service of the summons and complaint upon the defendants within 90 days. On
August 16, 2021, this court notified Donovan that he had failed to provide service
within the statutory period and ordered that he show good cause for such failure, or
the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Order, ECF No. 2. On August 30,
2021, Donovan responded to this court’s order, explaining that, as a pro se litigant,
he expected to receive more guidance from the court regarding how to proceed with
this case. He then requested an extension to serve the summons and complaint upon
the defendants. Further, Donovan asked that this court stay the proceedings in this
case pending resolution of his related state criminal case in Buchanan County Circuit
Court, Case No. CR-20000356-00, CR-20000357-00.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that a plaintiff must obtain service of the
summons and the complaint upon defendants within 90 days of filing a cause of
action. The court may grant an extension of time for service of process provided
that good cause is shown for failure to do so within the statutory time period. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m). “Because the question of what constitutes ‘good cause’ necessarily
is determined on a case-by-case basis within the discretion of the district court,
courts have declined to give it a concrete definition, preferring to analyzing a number
of factors.” Scott v. Md. State Dep’t of Labor, 673 F. App’x 299, 306 (4th Cir. 2016)
(unpublished). A court may consider, for example, “whether: 1) the delay in service
was outside the plaintiff’s control, 2) the defendant was evasive, 3) the plaintiff acted
diligently or made reasonable efforts, 4) the plaintiff is pro se or in forma pauperis,
5) the defendant will be prejudiced, or 6) the plaintiff asked for an extension of time
under 6(b)(1)(A).” Id. Additionally, the court may consider if the applicable statute
of limitations would bar the refiled action. See, e.g., Kurka v. Iowa Cnty., 628 F.3d
953, 958 (8th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases).
In Section 1983 actions, courts apply the statute of limitations for personal
injuries of the state in which the alleged violations occurred. DePaola v. Clarke,
884 F.3d 481, 486 (4th Cir. 2018). The applicable statute of limitations in Virginia
is two years. See id.; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01–243(A). Donovan filed this action on
January 19, 2021, successfully tolling the statute of limitations just shy of the twoyear period that would have barred the cause of action.1 Accordingly, if additional
A dismissal for failure to serve process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) is without
prejudice. Mendez v. Elliot, 45 F. 3d 75, 78 (4th Cir. 1995). However, the “without
prejudice” provision does not give a party “a right to refile without the consequences of
time defenses, such as the statute of limitations.” Id. The tolling of the statute of limitations
under § 1983 is governed by state law. See Bd. of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 485–
time is not granted, Donovan’s cause of action is likely to be precluded because the
statute of limitations will run within just two days. Moreover, as he is currently
proceeding pro se, I am inclined to excuse his failure to comply with the service of
process requirement and find that good cause is present in this case. I will therefore
grant Donovan’s first request for a time extension. However, I will not consider at
this time Donovan’s second request to stay these proceedings pending the resolution
of his criminal case until after defendants have been served.
For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The plaintiff’s request for an extension for service of process, ECF No. 3,
is GRANTED; and
2. The plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of entry of this order to
serve the summons and complaint on the defendants in a manner provided
by the law.
ENTER: October 5, 2021
/s/ JAMES P. JONES
Senior United States District Judge
86 (1980). The applicable state statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01–229(E)(1), states that if an
action is filed within the appropriate period but is later dismissed for a reason other than a
determination on the merits, “the time such action is pending shall not be computed as part
of the period within which such action may be brought and another action may be brought
within the remaining period.” Id. Section 8.01-229(E)(1) applies in § 1983 actions.
Bellamy v. Davis, No. 3:18CV137, 2020 WL 479182, at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2020).
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?