Royal v. City of Jersey Village et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-05026 Document14_ Filed on 12/09/25 in TXSD Pagelof3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 10, 2025
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
PATRICK ROYAL, §
§
Plaintiff, §
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-5026

§
CITY OF JERSEY VILLAGE, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
§
§

ORDER
Before this Court is City of Jersey Village and Jersey Village Police Department’s Motion
to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(5) and 4(m).
(Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff Patrick Royal has not responded, and the deadline to respond has well
passed. Accordingly, the motion is unopposed. After reviewing the motion, the pleadings, and the
applicable law, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Patrick Royal (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this case on December 20,
2024, and filed his Amended Complaint on December 25, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 1, 5). Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiff had until March 20, 2025 (within 90 days after the
Complaint was filed) to serve the Defendants, City of Jersey Village and Jersey Village Police
Department (collectively “Defendants”). There is no return of service or any filing in the docket
that indicates Defendants were served by the March 20th deadline according to Rule 4(m).
On April 10, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for
Insufficient Service of Process. (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff never responded to that motion. Summons

was issued by the Clerk’s Office of the Southern District of Texas as to Jersey Village Police

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO.

Case 4:24-cv-05026 Document14_ Filed on 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 2of3

Department on April 14, 2025, but no return of service is noted in the docket. Defendants have
preserved their Rule 12(b)(5) defense as it was included in their first official response to the
complaint. It is now well past Plaintiff’s deadline under Rule 4(m) to serve the Defendants, and
Defendants have yet to be served.

This Court previously issued a show cause Order, allowing Plaintiff to demonstrate good
cause by December 5, 2025, for why Defendants should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to
serve them in accordance with Rule 4(m). (Doc. No. 13). That deadline to show cause has since
passed. (/d.). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order, and therefore, failed to show any
good cause for why Defendants should not be dismissed.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) permits a named defendant to challenge proper
service of the summons and complaint in a case. The party making service has the burden of
demonstrating its validity when an objection to service is made. Carimi v. Royal Carribean Cruise
Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346 (Sth Cir. 1992). A district court has broad discretion to dismiss an
action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp,
S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (Sth Cir. 1994).

If a plaintiff fails to serve the defendant properly within 90 days of filing the complaint,
the action may be dismissed without prejudice unless the plaintiff shows good cause for failure to
complete service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If a plaintiff can establish good cause for failing to serve a
defendant, the court must allow additional time for service. Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21
(5th Cir. 1996). To establish good cause, a plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating “at least as
much as would be required to show excusable neglect” and “simple inadvertence or mistake of

counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice.” Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore,

Case 4:24-cv-05026 Document14_ Filed on 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 3of3

Inc., 776 F.2d 1304, 1306 (Sth Cir. 1985) (emphasis in original). In addition, “some showing of
good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for
noncompliance within the time specified is normally required.” /d. (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden to show good cause for the failure to effect timely
service. Thrasher vy. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 511 (Sth Cir. 2013).
Il. ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff had until March 20, 2025 (within 90 days after the
Complaint was filed) to serve Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Beyond filing his Amended
Complaint, plaintiff has not filed any other pleadings or documents before the Court. His deadline
for service under the Rules has long since passed, and he failed to show good cause for his delay
when ordered to by this Court. Due to these failures, dismissal is appropriate. Newby v. Enron
Corp., 284 F. App’x 146, 149 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating that “[u]nder Rule 4(m), a district court is
permitted to dismiss a case without prejudice if a defendant has not been served” in a timely
manner). Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is DISMISSED as moot.

It is so ordered.

x
Signed on this the A day of December 2025.

f

Ls \ > |
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge

3