1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ESTATE OF AMELIA H. MACIAS, 

WALTER MACIAS, STEVEN MACIAS, 

YVONNE SHILLING, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF AMELIA H. MACIAS;

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY, VERONICA GIDEON, TEXAS 

DPS OFFICER, INDIVIDUALLY; ELIAS 

ESCALON, TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; NATHAN MUTZ, 

TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; DREW PILKINGTON, 

TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF ADULT 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES, BRANDI 

WEIMER, ADULT PROTECTIVE 

SERVICES AGENT, INDIVIDUALLY; 

HENRY L. WHITMANJR., 

COMMISSIOER OF ADULT 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES; JOSEPH 

EVANS, TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; JASON BOBO, 

TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; BRENT BARINA, 

TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; CHAD MATLOCK, 

TEXAS DPS OFFICER; CODY 

MITCHELL, TEXAS DPS OFFICER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; MICHAEL J. SMITH, 

TEXAS DPS OFFICER; STEVEN 

MCCRAW, DIRECTOR OF TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY;

CRYSTALYNN NICHOLE CORNEVIN, 

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES 

AGENT; STATE OF TEXAS, KEZELI 

WOLD, "KEZ" 

DIRECTOR OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT 

OF FAMILY SERVICES; AND 

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00460-FB

Case 5:20-cv-00460-FB-ESC Document 28 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 3
2

ORDER

Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action, in which counsel for Plaintiffs and 

all served Defendants appeared for a telephonic status conference on July 29, 2020. At the 

conference, Plaintiffs requested additional time to respond to the most recently filed motion to 

dismiss by the Department of Family Protective Services and associated individual Defendants

[#26]. The Court agreed to give Plaintiffs ten days to file their response and seven days for 

Defendants to file any reply.

The Court also addressed the issue of the unserved individual Defendants in this case. 

The Court’s previous Order following its last status conference [#20] ordered Plaintiffs to 

effectuate service on any named but yet unserved Defendants within 14 days of the filing of 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Pleading and to serve any new Defendants named in the Second 

Amended Complaint within 90 days of the filing of the pleading. Plaintiffs filed their Second 

Amended Complaint on July 13, 2020, meaning any unserved Defendants that were named in 

previous pleadings should have been served by July 27, 2020. Yet Plaintiffs explained at the 

status conference that no Defendant has been served since the last conference, in part due to 

Plaintiffs’ process server having COVID-19. 

Rule 4(m) requires service of process within 90 days after a complaint is filed. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m). Numerous individual Defendants remain unserved. The Court specified that 

service was to occur by July 27, 2020, and service has still not been completed. If a plaintiff 

fails to serve process within the time specified by the Court, the Court must either dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified 

time. Id. If there is good cause for the failure to serve, the Court “must extend the time for an 

appropriate period.” The illness of Plaintiffs’ process server constitutes good cause, and the 

Case 5:20-cv-00460-FB-ESC Document 28 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 3
3

Court will extend the time for service pursuant to Rule 4(m). However, there will be no further 

extensions of the time for service beyond that set forth in this Order. A failure to effectuate 

service in compliance with this Order will result in the dismissal of the unserved Defendants 

without prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs may respond to Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss [#26] on or before August 10, 2020. Any reply is due within seven days of the 

response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs serve any unserved Defendants named in 

the Second Amended Complaint on or before August 30, 2020. 

SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00460-FB-ESC Document 28 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 3