Munford v. CBM Food Service, No. 3:2013cv00388 - Document 30 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 2/18/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Munford v. CBM Food Service Doc. 30 I IN THE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT L E Irft FEB I9 2015 COURT W OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA NATAJH DEVON MUNFORD, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. 3:13CV3 88 CBM FOOD SERVICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Natajh Devon Munford, a federal inmate proceeding pro and in forma pauperis filed this 42 U.S.C. § 19831 action. se Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4{m),2 Munford had 120 days to serve Defendant CBM Food Service. Here, that period commenced 1 That statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law .... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 Rule 4(m) provides, in pertinent part: If after a the defendant complaint is is not served filed, the within 12 0 days court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Dockets.Justia.com on August 8, not served 2014. the More than 120 days elapsed and Munford had Defendant. entered on January 8, Accordingly, 2015, by Memorandum Order the Court directed Munford to show good cause for his failure to serve Defendant. District courts within the Fourth Circuit have found good cause to extend the 12 0-day time period when the plaintiff has made w* reasonable, defendant."7 5145334, Access diligent Venable v. at *1 Dep't of (E.D. Va. Floors, Inc., efforts Feb. 31 F. 7, to Corr., 2007) Supp. 2d effect No. service 3:05cv821, on the 2007 WL (quoting Hammad v. Tate 524, 528 (D. Md. 1999)). This leniency is especially appropriate when factors beyond the plaintiff's control frustrate his or her diligent efforts. McCollum 2010 v. WL GENCO 5100495, Rentals v. 1996)). at United Thus, Infrastructure *2 (E.D. States, Solutions, Va. 164 Dec. 7, F.R.D. No. 2010) 422, See 3:10-CV-210, (citing T 425 (N.D. W. & S Va. courts are more inclined to find good cause where extenuating factors exist such as active evasion of service by a defendant, T & S Rentals, Raymond Constr. stayed Co., proceedings McCollum, 2010 WL F.R.D. 570 F. Supp. that delay 5100495, Fountainhead Title Grp. 2006)). 164 Corp., at 42 5 278, the at 282 (citing Prather v. (N.D. issuance *2 Ga. of (citing 447 F. Supp. 2d 478, 1983)), a summons. Robinson 485 or v. (D. Md. However, M* [i]nadvertence, neglect, of the rule or its burden, misunderstanding, ignorance or half-hearted attempts at service' generally are insufficient to show good cause." Venable, 5145334, F.R.D. at *1 (quoting Vincent 436, 437 (N.D. W. Va. plaintiff's pro se status 2d 590, 597 Reynolds 1992)). Mem'1 Hosp., 141 While a court might take a into consideration when coming to conclusion on good cause, Supp. v. 2007 WL Lane v. (M.D.N.C. Lucent 2005), Techs. , Inc. , 388 neither pro se a F. status nor No. incarceration alone constitute good cause. Sewraz v. Long, 3:08CV100, Va. Jan. 24, 2012) 8, 2014, the Court 2012 WL 214085, at *l-2 (E.D. (citing cases). By Memorandum informed Marshal for Munford in Order that, entered if serving Defendant Defendants. The Defendant's Indolence such as and that must provide heard assistance nothing a street from is made provide no the effort same to to hardly consistent with 2007 WL 5145334, at *1 (quoting Hammad, claims the address Munford for ascertain the w[due] to my Court. "'reasonable, diligent efforts to effect service on the defendant.'" Munford of During the 120-day period for serving apparently address the and only received a response due to the Court's show cause order. Munford wished he Court approximately 162 days, Defendant, he on August Venable, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 528). incarceration I cannot address or names to be compliance with Memorandum Order." get (Mot. to Halt Legal Action, corrected).) ECF No. 29 (spelling and capitalization Munford also asks the Court "to halt all legal action" until his April 17, 2015 release date. Motion (ECF No. As 29) previously (Id.) Munford's will be denied. stated, Munford's incarceration, standing alone, fails to demonstrate good cause for his failure to serve the Defendant. Sewraz, 2012 WL 214085, at *l-2. Because Munford has failed to establish good cause for his failure to serve Defendant, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Munford. /s/ (ilp Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: ^J^uAA^/tt^O
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
