1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JERVIS LAVERN GOODRICH, : No. 4:CV-04-1603

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

:

STEPHEN WILCOX, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

September 2, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

For Insufficient Service of Process (“the Motion”) (doc. 15) filed by Defendants

Stephen Wilcox, Christopher Soo, Richard Davy, and Kevin Patterson (collectively

“Defendants”) on August 1, 2005. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be

granted in part and denied in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On July 22, 2004, plaintiff Jervis Lavern Goodrich (“Plaintiff” or

“Goodrich”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania against Pennsylvania State Troopers Stephen Wilcox and

Christopher Soo pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Rec. Doc. 1). As we

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 20 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 6
2

explained in our July 13, 2005 Order, Goodrich alleges that on September 10,

2002, Defendants Wilcox and Soo made an unlawful investigatory stop of an

automobile at 11:19 p.m. Additionally, Goodrich asserts that due to the illegal

stop, his fiancé at the time, Malissa Kinne, and himself were subjected to an illegal

search and seizure, false arrest, harassment, and illegal incarceration. Goodrich

alleges that he and his fiancé were not given their Miranda warnings and were

subjected to Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. On April 1, 2005, Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint in which he added two defendants, Pennsylvania State

Troopers Richard Davy and Kevin Patterson. (See Rec. Doc. 8). 

On August 1, 2005, Defendants filed the instant Motion, to which Plaintiff

submitted a brief in opposition on August 29, 2005. The Motion is therefore ripe

for disposition.

DISCUSSION:

As Defendants explain in their Motion, after filing his complaint against

Defendants Soo and Wilcox on July 22, 2004, a summons was issued and provided

to Plaintiff for service upon the aforereferenced Defendants on July 23, 2004. On

September 16, 2004, we issued an Order directing Plaintiff to make service upon

Defendants in accordance with the applicable rules. (See Rec. Doc. 5). As we

previously explained, on April 1, 2005, Plaintiff amended his complaint, adding

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 20 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 6
3

claims against Defendants Davy and Patterson and a summons was issued and

provided to Plaintiff for service upon Defendants Davy and Patterson. 

On April 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed a one-page document with the Court

certifying that he sent a notice to each Defendant stating, “This is your final notice,

you have (10) working day’s [sic] to respond or answer to the summons and

complaint that was filed against you on April 5, 2005.” (See Rec. Doc. 13). 

Defendants state that documents entitled “Certificate of Service,” filed by Plaintiff,

indicate that he mailed a copy of the complaint via United States Registered Mail

to Defendants Soo, Wilcox, Patterson, and Davy. Defendants have entered a

limited appearance to challenge the improper service of process upon them.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide methods for serving process

on individuals in a federal action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

(“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 4 governs service in federal court. See Nanyonga v. INS, 200

F.R.D. 503, 505 (M.D. Pa. 2001). Unless an individual defendant waives service

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2), service cannot be made by mail in a federal action in

Pennsylvania. Federal Rule 4(e), provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 20 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 6
4

Service Upon Individuals Within a Judicial District of the United

States. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an

individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other

than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in any

judicial district of the United States:

(1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is

located, or in which service is effected, for the service of a summons

upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of general

jurisdiction of the State; or

(2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the

individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s

dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable

age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the

summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment

or by law to receive service of process.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). We note that although Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1) allows service

under the rules of the state where the district court is located, Pennsylvania does

not allow service by mail upon individuals. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 402. 

We therefore find that Plaintiff’s service of the complaint and summons via

United States Registered Mail to the named Defendants does not satisfy the service

requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). Plaintiff did not therefore properly effectuate

service of process in this case. Although we recognize that the 120 day

requirement in which service of the summons and complaint must be made upon

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 20 Filed 09/02/05 Page 4 of 6
1

 Federal Rule 4(m) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Time Limit for Service. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on

its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as

to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service

for an appropriate period. 

5

named defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m)1 has elapsed with respect to both

Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint, we find excusable neglect, in part

upon consideration of Plaintiff’s submission in opposition to the Motion, for

Plaintiff’s failure to properly effectuate service of process in the case sub judice. 

We will therefore provide Plaintiff with an additional thirty (30) days from

the date of this Order in which to effectuate proper service upon all named

Defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 or to request leave to proceed in forma

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If Plaintiff does not effectuate proper service

upon all named Defendants or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis within

thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the Court shall dismiss Plaintiff’s

amended complaint without prejudice.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for

Insufficient Service of Process is granted in part and denied in part.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint For

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 20 Filed 09/02/05 Page 5 of 6
6

Insufficient Service of Process (doc. 15) is granted in part and denied

in part to the following extent:

A. Defendants’ Motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff shall

effectuate proper service upon all named Defendants within

thirty (30) days of the date of this Order pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4, or in the alternative he shall request

leave to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days of the

date of this Order. 

B. If Plaintiff does not effectuate proper service upon all named

Defendants or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis within

thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, we will without

further notice dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint without

prejudice.

C. The Motion is denied in all other respects.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 20 Filed 09/02/05 Page 6 of 6