Rex S. Gunther v. Pamela Jo Bondi

E.D. Missouri

Rex S. Gunther v. Pamela Jo Bondi

DecidedNovember 12, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01304

StatusUnknown

This text of Rex S. Gunther v. Pamela Jo Bondi (Rex S. Gunther v. Pamela Jo Bondi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rex S. Gunther v. Pamela Jo Bondi, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

REX S. GUNTHER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01304-MTS ) PAMELA JO BONDI, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Rex S. Gunther, a civil detainee at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center, filed this action two and a half months ago, but he has yet to serve Defendant as is required. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is not served within ninety days after the complaint is filed, the Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant” or “order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Since Plaintiff has paid the full $405 filing fee in this matter, neither the Court nor the United States Marshals Service will effectuate service of process on his behalf.* Because Plaintiff named the United States Attorney General as the Defendant, he must serve Defendant in accordance with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To date, though, Plaintiff has not even sought a summons from the Court to begin the process. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will order that service be made no later than Friday, December 12, 2025.

* A plaintiff who is not proceeding in forma pauperis is responsible for having the summons and complaint served on all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). It makes no difference that Plaintiff here is pro se. See DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 980 (10th Cir. 1993) (“A pro se litigant is still obligated to follow the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”); Davis v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 1:25-cv-1895-JMC, 2025 WL 1743940, at *2 n.1 (D.D.C. June 24, 2025) (noting same). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through Friday, December 12, 2025, to serve Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and to file proof of such service with the Court. Failure to serve Defendant and file proof of service with the Court by that date will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice and without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Dated this 12th day of November 2025. |) □□ of THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

REX S. GUNTHER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01304-MTS ) PAMELA JO BONDI, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Rex S. Gunther, a civil detainee at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center, filed this action two and a half months ago, but he has yet to serve Defendant as is required. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is not served within ninety days after the complaint is filed, the Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant” or “order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Since Plaintiff has paid the full $405 filing fee in this matter, neither the Court nor the United States Marshals Service will effectuate service of process on his behalf.* Because Plaintiff named the United States Attorney General as the Defendant, he must serve Defendant in accordance with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To date, though, Plaintiff has not even sought a summons from the Court to begin the process. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will order that service be made no later than Friday, December 12, 2025.

* A plaintiff who is not proceeding in forma pauperis is responsible for having the summons and complaint served on all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). It makes no difference that Plaintiff here is pro se. See DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 980 (10th Cir. 1993) (“A pro se litigant is still obligated to follow the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”); Davis v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 1:25-cv-1895-JMC, 2025 WL 1743940, at *2 n.1 (D.D.C. June 24, 2025) (noting same). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through Friday, December 12, 2025, to serve Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and to file proof of such service with the Court. Failure to serve Defendant and file proof of service with the Court by that date will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice and without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Dated this 12th day of November 2025. |) □□ of THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rex S. Gunther v. Pamela Jo Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rex-s-gunther-v-pamela-jo-bondi-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack