Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00567/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

In the Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), John Henry Armstrong is

identified as the Probate Judge of Washington County.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERMAINE HICKS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00567-KD-B

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten

Complaint together with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of

Fees (hereinafter “Motion”). (Docs. 1, 2). This action has been

referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.1. Based upon a careful

review of the record, it is recommended that this action be

dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to timely serve Defendants.

I. Nature of Proceedings.

Plaintiff filed a one-page, handwritten Complaint against a

Washington County Probate Judge, prosecutor Harold Odom, and

arresting officers, Pristine Jones and Kesler Weaver.1

 Plaintiff

claims that he was “railroaded on false charges without evidence on

false accusations [and was] twice put in je[opar]dy.” (Doc. 1).

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 10
2

Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed his Motion which

contained scant information about his financial status (Doc. 2).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion was denied, as deficient, and he

was ordered to file a new motion which provided information

regarding how Plaintiff provided for his basic needs, such as food

and shelter. (Doc. 3). 

In response, Plaintiff paid $50.00 and filed a new Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (hereinafter “new Motion”),

which contained additional information. (Docs. 4 & 6). Upon

review, the Court denied Plaintiff’s new Motion, after finding that

on a monthly basis, Plaintiff had discretionary income in the

amount of $333. Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered that he pay the

remainder of the filing fee. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff paid the

remainder of the filing fee on April 2, 2008. (Doc. 8). Then, on

July 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10).

The docket does not reflect that Plaintiff has made any

attempt to perfect service on any of the Defendants. As a result,

on January 27, 2009, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff

to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for his

failure to perfect service upon the Defendants within 120 days

after the filing of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m).

(Doc. 12). In the Order, Plaintiff was expressly advised that it

is his responsibility to timely perfect service of process in a

manner authorized by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 10
2

In addition, the record reflects that on June 16, 2008,

Plaintiff was provided with a copy of the Pro Se Litigation Guide

which contains information regarding service of process. (Doc.

9).

3

Procedure, and to file proof of service pursuant to Rule 4(l),

Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rule 4.1(a)2. (Id.) In response Plaintiff

filed a copy of the original Complaint with a summons that is

partially completed with no seal from the Clerk of Court. (Doc.

13). The Court issued a second Show Cause Order on January 21,

2010. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff was directed to show cause by February

8, 2010, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

timely perfect service process in a manner authorized by Rule 4 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not responded

to the Court’s Order, nor has his copy of the Order been returned

to the Court. 

II. Analysis.

A plaintiff is responsible for effectuating service of process

on each defendant, that is, serving a summons (or waiver) and a

copy of the complaint on each defendant. Henderson v. United

States, 517 U.S. 654, 662, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 1643, 134 L.Ed.2d 880

(1996); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277,

1281-82 (11th Cir. 2007). The time for accomplishing service is

within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P.

4(m). Rule 4(m), which governs the timeliness of service, further

provides:

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 10
4

If a defendant is not served within 120

days after the complaint is filed, the

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). This rule requires that if good cause is shown,

the Court is required to extend the period of time for serving a

defendant. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m); Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc.,

583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009). “Good cause exists when some

outside factor, such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than

inadvertence or negligence, prevented service.” Id. (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). Ignorance of Rule 4(m) is not

a basis for finding that good cause exists. Asad v. Crosby, 158

Fed. Appx. 166, 171 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[P]ro se status does not

exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural

and substantive law . . . [t]o hold that complete ignorance of Rule

4(j)[predecessor of Rule 4(m)] constitutes good cause for untimely

service would allow the good cause exception to swallow the rule.”)

(citation and quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original)

(unpublished); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.) (A

pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court

including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied,

493 U.S. 863 (1989).

In the instant action Plaintiff was given two opportunities to

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 4 of 10
5

show cause why his action should not be dismissed for his failure

to serve Defendants in this action. (Doc. 12). In response to the

first Order, Plaintiff did not provide any explanation for his

failure to perfect service. (Doc. 13). He merely filed a copy of

the original Complaint with a summons form attached. The summons,

however, does not indicate that any Defendant was served with a

summons and a copy of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Thus,

although Plaintiff filed a response, the response is not

appropriate and does not make any argument as to why service was

not attempted timely by Plaintiff. As noted supra, Plaintiff

simply failed to file any response to the second Show Cause Order.

Based upon the record before the Court, the undersigned finds that

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for his failure to serve

Defendants, and has further failed to provide any basis for

extending the time for service.

According to Rule 4(m), the Court may extend the time for

service even though there is not good cause for the failure to

serve. Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282. In using its discretion

to extend the time for service, the Court should consider other

factors that would warrant granting an extension, such as, the

running of the statute of limitations or evasion of service of

process. Id. (quoting the Committee’s Advisory Note to Rule 4(m)).

These factors are not present in this action at this time. For the

aforementioned reasons and the reasons identified below, the Court

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 5 of 10
6

is not inclined to extend the time for service. 

This action was filed on August 15, 2007 and, since then, very

little action has taken place in this case by Plaintiff. The

record does not reflect that he has made any attempt to serve the

Defendants. The period of time that has elapsed since the filing

of this action until now is considerable. Furthermore, in

examining Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint, there are

great difficulties with his manner of pleading due to the brief and

conclusory nature of his statements. “Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___,

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Whereas, in order to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, there must be

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at ___, 129 S.Ct. at

1949 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,

127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “[W]hen the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged[,]” a claim is facially plausible and is stated. Id.

Plaintiff has not done this.

In regard to the substantive nature of Plaintiff’s claims, his

claims against the judge and prosecutor are problematic as judges

and prosecutors are typically entitled to absolute immunity from

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 6 of 10
7

damages. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 361-62, 98 S.Ct.

1099, 1105, 1107-08, 55 L.Ed.2d (1978) (a judge is entitled to

absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while

he was acting in his judicial capacity unless he acted in the

“‘clear absence of all jurisdiction’” and “will not be deprived of

immunity because the action he took was in error, was done

maliciously, or was in excess of [his] authority”) (quotation

omitted); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984,

995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity

encompasses a prosecutor’s acts or omissions associated with the

judicial process, in particular, those taken in initiating a

prosecution and in presenting the government’s case).

Although not clearly stated, Plaintiff’s underlying claim

appears to be indicative of a belief that the legal system caused

him to suffer a wrong. Many claims of this nature are governed by

the decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364

(1994), which held: 

 in order to recover damages for allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or

sentence invalid, (footnote omitted), a § 1983

plaintiff must prove that the conviction or

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid

by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 7 of 10
8

Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. at 2372-73. Therefore, in considering the

deficits in Plaintiff’s pleading of his claims and in what the

Court considers to be the nature of his underlying claims, an

extension of time for the purpose of accomplishing service of

process on Defendants is not warranted.

III. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to timely serve

Defendants.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 5th day of April, 2010.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 8 of 10
3 Effective December 1, 2009, the time for filing written

objections was extended to “14 days after being served with a

copy of the recommended disposition[.]” FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(2).

9

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within fourteen days of the date of service

of this document, file specific written objections with the clerk

of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by

the district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar

an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out

in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides,

in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days3

 after being served

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different

time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the

recommendation to which objection is made and the basis

for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to

the district judge, at the time of filing the

objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments

that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be

reviewed de novo and a different disposition made. It

is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 9 of 10
10

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within fourteen

(14) days of being served with a copy of the statement of

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

Case 1:07-cv-00567-KD-B Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 10 of 10