2:25-cv-00024•Ramos v. Chaplain J. Stehle et al
Gesamter Gesetzestext
1 / 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION AARON A RAMOS, Plaintiff, VS. § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00024 CHAPLAIN J. STEHLE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WARDEN J. FIKES FOR FAILURE TO SERVE Plaintiff Aaron A. Ramos (Fed. Reg. No. 26615-480), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, raises claims that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. Plaintiff alleges the defendants denied or unlawfully interfered with his right to practice his religious faith, that is a “Urantia Book reader.” (D.E. 1). At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was a federal inmate assigned to Victorville-FCC in Adelanto, California. Plaintiff’s claims arise, however, in connection with his prior assignment to FCI-Three Rivers, in Three Rivers Texas. Plaintiff currently resides at Dismiss Charities, RRC, located in El Paso, Texas. (D.E. 24). By Order entered on January 31, 2025, the undersigned ordered service of Plaintiff’s complaint (D.E. 1) and attachments to the complaint (D.E. 1-1 through 1-16) on two FCI-Three Rivers officials, Captain J. Stehl and Warden J. Fikes. (D.E. 8). After being granted extensions of time to file responsive pleadings, Captain Stehl filed his answer on August 18, 2025. (D.E. 21). Warden Fikes, however, has yet to appear in this action. United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED December 15, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 2:25-cv-00024 Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
2 / 3 Assistant United States Attorney Lander Baiamonte filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Warden Fikes, explaining that Warden Fikes has retired and no current address for Warden Fikes was currently on file. (D.E. 20, p. 2). Ms. Baiamonte explained further that she was not able to communicate with Warden Fikes to obtain his consent to be represented by the United States Attorney’s Office in this action. Id. On August 19, 2025, the undersigned: (1) granted Ms. Baiamonte’s motion to withdraw as counsel; (2) advised Plaintiff that service of Warden Fikes must be effectuated within 90 days of filing his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and (3) advised Plaintiff that the 90-day period had already expired. (D.E. 23, p. 2). The undersigned nevertheless ordered Plaintiff that, on or before November 19, 2025, he must identify the correct address for Warden Fikes and file a written motion requesting this Court to order service. Id.at 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the August 19 Order may result in Warden Fikes being dismissed without prejudice for want of service. Id. On October 29, 2025, the undersigned granted a motion to stay this case due to the recent government shutdown. (D.E. 28). The stay was lifted on November 18, 2025, after the government reopened and resumed normal operations. (D.E. 31). As part of the November 18, 2025 Amended Order Setting Deadlines, the undersigned granted Plaintiff an extension until December 8, 2025 to identify the correct address for Warden Fikes and file a written motion requesting this Court to request service. (D.E. 30, p. 1). The undersigned warned Plaintiff this would be the final extension of time for Plaintiff to obtain the correct address and file the proper written motion requesting service. Id. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: Case 2:25-cv-00024 Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3
3 / 3 If a defendant is not served within 90 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 effected 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). The 90-day period from the date the complaint was filed to serve Warden Fikes has long since expired. Per two Court Orders (D.E. 23; D.E. 30), the undersigned has extended the time until December 8, 2025 for Plaintiff to provide this Court with information and a proper motion requesting service in order to effectuate service on Warden Fikes. Despite being warned of the consequences of failing to comply with the Orders entered on August 19 and November 18, Plaintiff neither has provided the Court with a response identifying Warden Fikes’s correct address nor a motion requesting service on that defendant. Plaintiff otherwise has provided no good cause to warrant an extension of time for effectuating service on Warden Fikes. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the district court DISMISS Warden J. Fikes from this action without prejudice for want of prosecution by failing to serve Warden J. Fikes in a timely fashion under Rule 4(m) and the August 19 and November 18 orders. ORDERED on December 15, 2025. _______________________________ Jason B. Libby United States Magistrate Judge Case 2:25-cv-00024 Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.