IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

WOODROW J JONES SR,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GRAPELAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, DON JACKSON, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KRISTI BELL, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BRAD SPISAK, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DAVID MAASS, 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION, SUSANA NAHAS, 

INVESTIGATOR; DEIDRA HENRY, 

INVESTIGATOR; ELIZABETH PORRAS, 

TRAVIS M NICHOLSON, JAMES 

MARTIN, JOSH GOOLSBY, TIM 

HOWARD, CHANCE HUFF, ALLEN 

CHEATHAM, RYAN RICHIE, MELISSA 

COBB, KENDRA HUFF, LIGITA D. 

LANDRY,

Defendants.

NO.9:23-CV-00059-MJT

REPORT AND RECMMENDATION DENYING MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

This case is assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Truncale, United States District Judge, 

and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. The 

Plaintiff, Woodrow J. Jones Sr. (“Jones”), proceeding pro se, has filed Motions for Default 

Judgment against Defendants Erin Norris,1 Travis Nicholson, Deidra Henry and Susana Nahas. 

1 The undersigned does not find an “Erin Norris” in Jones’ Original Complaint. Perhaps Jones is referring to 

Elizabeth Porras. See Doc. No. 1, at 17.

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 55 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

590
2

Doc. Nos. 33, 51-54. According to the complaint, these defendants are employees of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) authorizes the entry of a default judgment against a 

party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought when such party fails to plead or 

otherwise respond to the action. “It is axiomatic that a defendant has no duty to answer a lawsuit 

until properly served; and consequently, a plaintiff is not entitled to obtain a default judgment until 

proper service is effectuated.” RooR Int’l BV v. A1 Smoke Shop Inc., No. 4:18-CV-3828, 2019 WL 

6330543, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:18-CV-3828, 

2019 WL 6330483 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2019) (citations omitted).

Jones has paid the filing fee for this action. Litigants who appear pro se are responsible 

for serving a copy of the complaint and a summons to appear on each defendant, in accordance 

with the requirements of federal law.2 Among other things, federal law requires that service of 

process be accomplished within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). 

In a case against an officer of the United States, a plaintiff must properly serve the United 

States in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1). First, the Plaintiff must serve a copy of the 

summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the district where the action is brought. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(A). The plaintiff can personally deliver a copy of the summons and 

complaint to one of the designated agents for receiving service of process at the local United States 

Attorney’s Office.3 See FED R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i). Alternatively, the plaintiff can send a copy of 

2 While the undersigned provided an Order and Advisory Regarding Service of Process to Jones on April, 4, 

2023, that Advisory did not include instructions for properly serving United States officers. Doc. No. 4.

3 The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas has designated Sharon Beckum and Dyan 

Stanford to receive and accept civil summonses and complaints in the Lufkin Office. See Designation of Personnel 

for Acceptance of Service of Process upon the U.S. Attorney in Civil Cases, United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Texas, https://txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/HR_Docs/20230601T104425.pdf.

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 55 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

591
3

the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the civil process clerk at the United 

States Attorney’s Office at the following address: Civil Process Clerk, United States Attorney’s 

Office, 550 Fannin Street, Suite 1250, Beaumont, TX 77701. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(ii). 

Second, the Plaintiff must serve a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or 

certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at the following address: U.S. Attorney 

General, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530. See FED. R.CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(B).

Additionally, because Jones is suing United States officers in their official capacity, he 

must also comply with the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(2). This rule requires the Plaintiff 

to “send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail” to the United 

States officer being sued. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(2). 

The record and Motions for Default Judgment do not indicate Jones has properly served 

these individual defendants.4 Therefore, the Motions for Default Judgment (Doc. Nos. 33, 51-54) 

should be denied.

The undersigned grants Jones a thirty-day extension from the date of this Report and 

Recommendation to properly serve these defendants. Moreover, Jones’ Motion to Object Proof of 

Service Being Unexecuted on Defendants, Motion for Sanction on Defendants for Failure to 

Accept Waiver of Summons of Service and/or Summons in a Civil Action and Motion to Opposing 

Notice of Improper Service (Doc. Nos. 29, 30, 42) are denied.

Finally, the Clerk is directed to issue summonses for the United States Attorney General, 

the United States and the United States Attorney’s Office. See Doc. No. 40-1.

4 See also Notice of Improper Service filed by the United States as amicus curiae. Doc. No. 40. 

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 55 Filed 10/19/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

592
4

OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), each party to this action has the right to file 

objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections to this Report must (1) be in writing, 

(2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, (3) be

served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report, and (4) be 

no more than eight (8) pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2); 

E.D. TEX. LOCAL R. CR-59(c). A party who objects to this Report is entitled to a de novo

determination by the United States district judge of those proposed findings and recommendations 

to which a specific objection is timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3).

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy 

of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States district 

judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–

77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings 

of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States district judge, see Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 19th day of October, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 55 Filed 10/19/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

593