Tawose v. Winton et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ADEWALE ENIOLA TAWOSE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1421-R
)
MATTHEW L. WINTON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Adewale Eniola Tawose’s Motion to Extend Time for
Service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) [Doc. No. 26], in which he asks
for more time to serve Defendants Aaron Ellis and Denver Acosta. Under Rule 4, if service
does not occur within 90 days of filing the complaint, “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.” F ED . R. CIV . P. 4(m). “But
if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure [to properly serve], the court must extend
the time for service for an appropriate period.” F ED . R. CIV . P. 4(m).
The “good cause” provision “should be read narrowly to protect only those plaintiffs
who have been meticulous in their efforts to comply with the Rule.” See Despain v. Salt
Lake Area Metro Gang Unit, 13 F.3d 1436, 1438 (10th Cir. 1994). “‘[I]nadvertence or
negligence alone do not constitute ‘good cause’ for failure of timely service.’” In re
Kirkland, 86 F.3d 172, 176 (10th Cir. 1996). “Mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules
also usually do not suffice.” Id. (citing Putnam v. Morris, 833 F.2d 903, 905 (10th Cir.
1987); Despain, 13 F.3d at 1439). “[A]bsence of prejudice to the defendants, by itself, does
Case 5:25-cv-01421-R Document 40 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 4

2
not equate to good cause on the part of the plaintiff[].” Despain, 13 F.3d at 1439 (citing In
re City of Phila. Litig., 123 F.R.D. 512, 514 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 1988)). “‘A pro se litigant
is still obligated to follow the requirements of’” Rule 4. Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d
838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 980 (10th Cir. 1993)).
“[A]n individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the United States by . . .
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.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1). In Oklahoma, “[a]t the election of the plaintiff, process . . . shall be
served by a sheriff or deputy sheriff.” OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2004(C)(1)(a).
Plaintiff represents he timely engaged the Oklahoma County Sheriff to serve
Defendants at their known residences. According to Plaintiff, the Sheriff made multiple
attempts to serve Defendants but has since issued returns of non-service for both
Defendants [Doc. Nos. 26-2, 26-3]. Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendants does not
appear due to inadvertence, negligence, mistake of counsel, or ignorance of the rules. Thus,
for good cause shown, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to serve the Defendants
is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until April 25, 2026, to serve Defendants Aaron Ellis
and Denver Acosta.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Authorize Alternative Service on
Defendants Aaron Ellis and Denver Acosta [Doc. No. 34]. In his Motion, Plaintiff reiterates
the multiple attempts by the Oklahoma County Sheriff to serve Defendants at their known
residences. Plaintiff indicates he has communicated with counsel for both Ellis and Acosta
regarding service logistics but has still been unable to serve either Defendant. It also
Case 5:25-cv-01421-R Document 40 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 4

3
appears as though Plaintiff at least attempted to serve Acosta through certified mail [Doc.
No. 34-5].
In Oklahoma, personal service may be made on an individual “by delivering
a copy of the summons and of the [complaint] . . . personally or by leaving
copies thereof at the person’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with
some person 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.” O KLA. STAT . tit 12, § 2004(C)(1)(c)(1); e.g., Rule 4(e)(2)
[]. Oklahoma courts recognize that strict compliance with these statutory
requirements 	is 	not 	required; 	“instead, 	‘substantial 	compliance’ 	is
sufficient.” J & J Sports Prods. Inc. v. Aguirre, No. 13-CV-771-TCK-TLW,
2015 WL 2341516 (N.D. Okla. May 14, 2015) (citing Graff v. Kelly, 814
P.2d 489, 495 (Okla. 1991)); Graff, 814 P.2d at 495 (substantial compliance
required for court to have jurisdiction over defendant). Thus, if service of
process cannot be otherwise achieved, “a defendant . . . may be served as
provided by court order in any manner which is reasonably calculated to give
the defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be
heard.” O KLA . STAT . tit. 12, § 2004(C)(6).
Honeycutt v. Hughs, No. CIV-14-797-W, 2015 WL 2449424, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 21,
2015) (citations altered and footnotes omitted).
Plaintiff requests, among other methods, the ability to effect service by first class
mail or certified mail. But service by certified mail is an appropriate state law method of
serving the Defendants.
At the election of the plaintiff, a summons and petition may be served by
mail by the plaintiff’s attorney, any person authorized to serve process
pursuant to subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of this subsection or by the court
clerk upon a defendant of any class referred to in . . . . Service by mail shall
be accomplished by mailing a copy of the summons and petition by certified
mail, return receipt requested and delivery restricted to the addressee.
O KLA . STAT . tit. 12, § 2004(C)(2)(a), (b). Because service by certified mail is an authorized
service method under Oklahoma law, Plaintiff may serve the Defendants via certified mail
without this Court’s permission. See Rule 4(e)(1).
Case 5:25-cv-01421-R Document 40 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Authorize Alternative Service [Doc. No. 34] is
DENIED without prejudice for resubmission, if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25 th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01421-R Document 40 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 4