Haywood v. State of Kansas

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: April 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02329
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LATANYA HAYWOOD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. 2:21-cv-02329-JWB-TJJ ) STATE OF KANSAS, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Issue Summons (ECF No. 13). In her motion, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified extension of time to serve process on the current Defendants and to “add more summons to this case.” Because no Defendant has been served with summons and complaint, the Court expects no responses to this motion will be filed. Plaintiff filed the motion for extension of time one day before the April 21, 2022 service deadline, which the Court had extended in a text-only order dated March 7, 2022 (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff has offered no explanation for why she did not meet her second deadline to serve the current Defendants, nor has she identified any new Defendants she presumably wants to add. Plaintiff makes no mention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which provides that if the plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve within the deadline, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.1 Plaintiff is familiar with Rule 4(m), as she responded to the Court’s order to show cause why she did not obtain service within her original 90-day

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). deadline (ECF No. 11). The Court found Plaintiff had shown good cause and granted a 45-day extension. Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court construes her filings liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.2 But the court does not assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant.3 Also, “pro se parties [must] follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”4 With this standard in mind, the Court orders as follows. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall (1) file an amended complaint identifying all Defendants she intends to include as parties to this action, and shall obtain from the Clerk’s office a summons for each, or (2) serve all current Defendants with summons and complaint and file a proof of service for each Defendant. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Issue Summons (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall (1) file an amended complaint identifying all Defendants she intends to include as

parties to this action, and shall obtain from the Clerk’s office a summons for each, or (2) serve all current Defendants with summons and complaint and file a proof of service for each Defendant. Absent a clear showing of good cause supported by specific and detailed facts, the Court does not intend to further extend Plaintiff’s service deadline. IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

3 Id.

4 Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Dated this 27th day of April, 2022 at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. Fames U.S. Magistrate Judge