Filed: Nov. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND SUMMONS (ECF #11) AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSES OF UNSERVED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff Major L. Russell ("Russell") filed a complaint against the City of Detroit (the "City") and eight individual defendants 1 (the "Complaint"). ( See ECF #1.) Russell claims that the Defendants discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND SUMMONS (ECF #11) AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSES OF UNSERVED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff Major L. Russell ("Russell") filed a complaint against the City of Detroit (the "City") and eight individual defendants 1 (the "Complaint"). ( See ECF #1.) Russell claims that the Defendants discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. 19..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND SUMMONS (ECF #11) AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSES OF UNSERVED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff Major L. Russell ("Russell") filed a complaint against the City of Detroit (the "City") and eight individual defendants1 (the "Complaint"). (See ECF #1.) Russell claims that the Defendants discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. (See id. at 8-9, Pg. ID 8-9.)
Russell successfully served the City of Detroit with the Summons and the Complaint, but he was not able to serve the eight individual defendants within the 90-day period set forth in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See ECF #7 at 2, Pg. ID 50.) On September 1, 2016, he filed a motion seeking a 45day extension in which to serve the individual defendants (the "First Motion to Extend"). (See ECF #7.) In the First Motion to Extend, Russell's counsel ("Counsel") explained that he has an ongoing and serious illness that has prevented him from timely completing service. (See id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 51.) The Court granted the First Motion to Extend, allowing Russell until October 24, 2016 to serve the individual defendants. (See ECF #10 at 3-4, Pg. ID 89-90.) Russell has now successfully served individual defendants Biondo, Houseworth, and Rinehart. (See ECF #11 at 2, Pg. ID 92.) However, Russell was unable to serve individual defendants Buchanan, Dougherty, English, Flanagan, and King (collectively, the "Unserved Defendants.") by the October 24, 2016 deadline. Russell now files a motion seeking an additional 21-day extension to complete service of the Unserved Defendants (the "Second Motion to Extend").2
In its order granting the First Motion to Extend, the Court identified five factors that guide its discretion in determining whether to extend the time for service. (See ECF #10 at 3, Pg. ID 89.) Here, the Court concludes that the same factors weigh in favor of one final short extension of time in which to complete service of the Unserved Defendants, but the Court does not conclude that a full 21-day extension is warranted.
Accordingly the Second Motion to Extend is GRANTED IN PART as follows. The Court ORDERS the City to provide to counsel for Russell, by electronic mail, the current or last known addresses (the "Addresses") of the Unserved Defendants by November 9, 2016.3 Once the City has provided the Addresses, it shall file a certificate of service with the Court indicating that it has done so. The Court extends the deadline for serving the Summons and Complaint on the Unserved Defendants to the tenth day following the City's service of the Addresses.4 In all other respects, Russell's Second Motion to Extend is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.