Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

FLOYD MARTIN ET AL CASE NO. 2:25-CV-01371

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

SCHOOL BOARD OF BEAUREGARD MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

PARISH

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss [doc. 4] filed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(5) by defendant Beauregard Parish School Board (“BPSD”). Plaintiffs

oppose the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

This suit arises from BPSD’s alleged deprivation of due process and failure to

provide a public education to BAM, a minor student, during the 2024–2025 school year.

Doc. 1. Plaintiffs allege as follows: BAM was removed at the beginning of the school year

after he was charged with terrorizing the school. Id. at ¶ 3. In February 2025, he was

adjudicated a delinquent on a charge of menacing and sentenced. Id. at ¶ 5. In September

2024, BAM’s parents were informed that he could not return to school “until the outcome

from court,” though he was never formally suspended. Id. at ¶¶ 6–7. His parents asked

about schoolwork, but BAM was not allowed computer access as a condition of his bond

during most of this time and the school only sporadically provided paper assignments. Id.

at ¶¶ 9–12. After his adjudication, the judge said that he was permitted to enroll in BPSD’s

alternative school. Id. at ¶ 19. BPSD refused to allow this, however, and instead required

that he un-enroll from the district in order to attend the state’s virtual school program. Id.

at ¶¶ 19–21.

BAM’s parents, Floyd Martin and Denise Smith, filed suit on behalf of themselves

and their son against BPSD in this court on September 13, 2025. On September 16, 2025,

plaintiffs filed proof of service in which the process server declares that he personally

served BPSD with the summons “at 50/50 Gas Station on 9-15-2025.”1 Doc. 3. The process

server has also provided an affidavit, stating that he personally served an individual who

identified herself as Heather “Nikki” Weldon, president of the Beauregard Parish School

Board, at the 50/50 Gas Station in DeRidder, Louisiana, on September 15, 2025, “with a

copy of [identify the document(s) served” [sic]. Doc. 6, att. 1. BPSD now moves for

dismissal of this suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), asserting that neither

the affidavit nor the service it purports to prove is adequate. Doc. 4. Plaintiffs oppose the

motion. Doc. 6.

1 The form, AO 440, provides five alternative options for completing service:

(1) “I personally served the summons on [defendant] at [place] . . . .”

(2) “I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode . . . .”

(3) “I served the summons on (name of individual), who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf

of (name of organization) . . . .”

(4) “I returned the summons unexecuted because . . . .” or

(5) “Other (specify).”

Plaintiffs’ process server completed the first option, as described above. Under the third, he also wrote in and then

crossed out the name “Heather Weldon.” Doc. 3.

II.

LAW & APPLICATION

A. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides the proper means of service for actions

filed in federal court, and Rule 4(m) specifies that a complaint must be served on the

opposing party within 90 days of its filing. Absent valid service of process, “proceedings

against a party are void.” Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Décor & Interior Design,

635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(5) allows for dismissal of an

action based on insufficient service of process. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Groupo Rimar, 2014

WL 6982499, at *3 (W.D. La. Dec. 9, 2014) (citing 5B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT &

ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1353 (3d ed.

2013)). On such a motion, the serving party bears the burden of proof. Aetna Bus. Credit,

635 F.3d at 435.

The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss an action

for insufficient service under Rule 12(b)(5). George v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 788 F.2d 1115,

1116 (5th Cir. 1986). If the motion relates to plaintiff’s failure to effect service within Rule

4(m)’s time limit, the court must extend the time to effect service for good cause shown.

Pugh v. Bank of America, 2017 WL 1427015, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 21, 2017) (citing Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m)). If there is no good cause shown, the court may at its discretion either

dismiss the action without prejudice or grant an extension. Id. (citing Thompson v. Brown,

91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996)).

B. Application

The ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) has not yet expired. Still, defendant

maintains that this suit must be dismissed because the proofs of service provided by

plaintiffs are inadequate. The applicable federal rule states:

A state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created governmental

organization that is subject to suit must be served by:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief

executive officer; or

(B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state’s law

for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). Under Louisiana law, “in suits against school boards, citation shall

be served on the president of the board and in his absence on the vice-president.” La. R.S.

§ 17:510.

The statutes do not require that the school board president be served at a particular

location. Taken together, the proof of service form and affidavit show that BPSD president

Heather “Nikki” Weldon was validly served on September 15, 2025, when the process

server located her at the 50/50 Gas Station in DeRidder, Louisiana.2 The court thus finds

no basis for extending the window for service, much less dismissing the suit.

2 BPSD emphasizes that the affidavit fails to specify which documents were served on Ms. Weldon. But the AO Form

440 was also used to prove service in this matter, and is generally accepted as valid proof of service in this court

despite its failure to specify whether a copy of the complaint was served along with the summons. Supra, note 1; see

doc. 3. Accordingly, in the absence of any contrary evidence from defendants showing that Ms. Weldon did not receive

a copy of the complaint, plaintiffs have met their burden.

II.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss [doc. 4] will be DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 19th day_ of November, 2025.

. = JAMES D. CAIN JR. C .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5