Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00814/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00814-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

MARILYN BELTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:10cv814-MHT

) (WO) 

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Marilyn Belton filed this lawsuit against

defendants Russell County Board of Education, Lillian

Baker, Marcia Johnson, and Mesha Ramsey, asserting

numerous federal and state claims. She charges

discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (by

and through 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17), as

well as violations of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975

(42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107) and procedural due process

violations under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Case 3:10-cv-00814-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 5
2

Amendments (as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Belton’s state claims are under the Alabama Teacher

Tenure Law (1975 Ala. Code §§ 16-24-1 through 16-24-22,

16-24-60 through 16-24-68) and for harassment,

intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrage,

tortious interference with contract rights, and breach of

contract under Alabama common law. Belton has sued

Baker, Johnson, and Ramsey in their individual

capacities.

The case is now before the court on Baker, Johnson,

and Ramsey’s motion, brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)

and (5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to quash

service upon them for insufficient service of process.

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.

Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

describes the process of serving an individual defendant.

Under this rule, an individual may be served by:

“(1) following state law for serving a

summons in an action brought in courts

of general jurisdiction in the state

where the district court is located or

where service is made; or 

Case 3:10-cv-00814-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 5
3

“(2) doing any of the following: 

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and

of the complaint to the individual

personally; 

(B) leaving a copy of each at the

individual's dwelling or usual place of

abode with someone of suitable age and

discretion who resides there; or

(C) delivering a copy of each to an

agent authorized by appointment or by

law to receive service of process.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Belton has not served Baker,

Johnson, and Ramsey through one of these methods.

Instead, Belton has attempted service by mailing the

complaint to each of them separately but in care of

Sydney Smith, counsel for the Russell County Board of

Education. While Baker, Johnson, and Ramsey are

employees of the school board, Smith is not authorized to

accept service of process on individual employees who are

sued in their individual capacities. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(e)(2)(C). As a result, Belton’s service on Baker,

Johnson, and Ramsey is improper and must be quashed.

Finally, Belton seeks an equitable bar prohibiting

Smith from later representing Baker, Johnson, and Ramsey.

Case 3:10-cv-00814-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 5
4

She argues that Smith’s refusal to accept service for

them now should estop Smith from representing them later.

Belton cites no law to support this argument, nor does

the argument have any merit otherwise. Indeed, with her

equitable bar argument, Belton is trying to force Baker,

Johnson, and Ramsey into forgoing the requirements for

service of process set forth in Rule 4(e) if they should

want to retain Smith later. The culprits here are Belton

and her attorney, for they are the ones who failed to

comply with Rule 4(e). The court will not allow Belton

and her attorney to turn Baker, Johnson, Ramsey, and

Smith into the culprits.

* * *

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is the

ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that defendants

Lillian Baker, Marcia Johnson, and Mesha Ramsey’s motion

to quash service upon them (doc. no. 7) is granted.

Plaintiff Marilyn Belton is allowed until November 30,

Case 3:10-cv-00814-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 5
2010, to perfect service of process on defendants Baker,

Johnson, and Ramsey.

DONE, this the 16th day of November, 2010.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00814-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 5