noting that pro se status does not excuse a litigant’s failure to effect service
How later courts described this case
- noting that pro se status does not excuse a litigant’s failure to effect service
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
TAMARA BROWN PLAINTIFF
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00261-NBB-JMV
CORY USELTON,
DESOTO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DESOTO COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
SHANE JONES, ANNIE MARTIN,
NATASHA WILLIAMS, ROBERT WILKIE,
AMBER MELTON, AND AMERITA TELL DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This cause comes before the court for entry of an order allowing the pro se plaintiff,
Tamara Brown, additional time to comply with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
effect proper service of process on the defendants in this action. Plaintiff served defendants’
counsel in this matter, which is improper. Counsel’s Notice of Appearance explicitly states that
defendants did not waive “any affirmative defenses, including, but not limited to, jurisdiction,
venue, or service of process.” [Doc. 5]. While federal courts in this circuit generally allow some
procedural leeway to pro se litigants, such litigants are not absolved from compliance with the
requirements of Rule 4. System Signs Supplies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th
Cir. 1990) (noting that pro se status does not excuse a litigant’s failure to effect service).
It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to discover a defendant’s proper agent for service and
the correct address and to provide that information to the clerk’s office for preparing summons,
so that service of plaintiff’s complaint and summons may issue. See Hancock v. Cothern, No.
3:10-cv-173-LRA, 2010 WL 4665567, at *2 n.12 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 9, 2010) (noting that it is
plaintiff’s ultimate responsibility to locate defendant’s current address and that failure to have
defendant served properly may result in dismissal of the complaint).
Defendants DeSoto County School District and its Board constitute a political
subdivision of the State of Mississippi. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2)(A) provides that
such a governmental organization should be served by “delivering a copy of the summons and of
the complaint to its chief executive officer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2)(A). Here, the District’s chief
executive officer is its superintendent, defendant Cory Uselton. The Board’s chief executive
officer is its chairperson, Michele Henley, according to defendants’ counsel. The District and
Board have not waived proper service of process, and their counsel has not been designated as
their agent to receive process and did not have authority to accept service on behalf of the
District and Board. Likewise, the individual defendants have not been properly served. The
court directs the plaintiff to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for proper
service of an individual.
Accordingly, the plaintiff shall, within fourteen days hereof, provide to the clerk of court
an address where each defendant may be served; and for any entity that is not a natural person,
the plaintiff shall also name the entity’s agent for service of process. Upon receipt of the
aforesaid information, the clerk shall issue process for the defendants, and the U.S. Marshal
Service shall serve process in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The plaintiff’s failure to
comply with this order will subject the plaintiff’s case to dismissal.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 28th day of January, 2021.
/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT