Helaire v. Villarreal et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Nameah Helaire,
Plaintiff,
v.
Houston Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-03547
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights case brought by Plaintiff Nameah Helaire against
the Houston Police Department (“HPD”), Harris County District Attorney’s
Office (“HCDA”), Antonio Villarreal, Christian Rome, Daniel Nunez, Amtaro
Montoya, and Angel August. 	Helaire has failed to timely serve HPD, HCDA,
Christian Rome, or Daniel Nunez in violation of federal rules and this Court’s
order. Her claims against these Defendants should be dismissed.
Background
On July 30, 2025, Helaire, filing pro se, sued HPD, HCDA, Antonio
Villarreal, Christian Rome, Daniel Nunez, Amtaro Montoya, and Angel August
under Section 1983 for several civil rights violations. 	See Dkt. 1. 	Helaire
alleges that she was falsely accused of arson, faced unprofessional and non-
transparent conduct, and that Internal Affairs negligently handled her report.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 08, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 25 Filed 12/08/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
See id. at 6. 	Returns of service were filed as to Defendants Amtaro Montoya
(Dkt. 6) and Angel August (Dkt. 7) on September 2, 2025, and to Antonio
Villarreal on September 10, 2025 (Dkt. 8).
On October 22, 2025, Helaire filed a motion for default judgment against
HPD, Dkt. 13; see also Dkt. 14, stating that HPD was served with a summons
and complaint on September 4, 2025. 	Dkt. 13 at 1. 	She further asserts that
she filed the proof of service with the Court on that date. Id. But no such proof
of service has been filed for HPD, HCDA, Christian Rome, 1 or Daniel Nunez.
The record does not even indicate that Plaintiff has properly sought formal
issuance of summons for these defendants.
On October 27, 2025, the Court ordered Helaire to file a proof of valid
service for the unserved defendants by November 21, 2025. Dkt. 15. The Court
warned that failure to effectuate service by November 21, 2025 may result in
dismissal of all claims against Defendants who have not been timely served.
Id. at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). 	This deadline has since expired without
action by Helaire.
1 The return of service as to Christian Rome indicates that he was not served because
he no longer works at the address that Helaire provided. Dkt. 9 (unexecuted return).
Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 25 Filed 12/08/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Analysis
Helaire has not timely served Defendants HPD, HCDA, Christian Rome,
or Daniel Nunez. Federal rules require that a defendant be served with process
90 days after suit is filed. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 	“A litigant’s pro se status
neither 	excuses 	his 	failure 	to 	effect 	service nor 	excuses 	him 	for 	lack 	of
knowledge of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” 	Thrasher v. City of Amarillo,
709 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted). Without proper
service, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 	See Omni
Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).
Absent timely service, the Court “must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 	“The serving party bears the burden of
proving good cause for failure to effect service.” 	Epley v. Luong, 2023 WL
8595674, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023) (per curiam) (citing Thrasher v. City of
Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2013)).
Helaire 	did 	not 	timely serve 	several 	defendants 	within 	the 	90-day
window, which expired on October 28, 2025. 	Nor has she articulated good
cause for failing to do so. 	Compounding that deficiency, Helaire has violated
this Court’s October 27, 2025 order, Dkt. 15, that explicitly directed her to
serve Defendants HPD, HCDA, Christian Rome, and Daniel Nunez by the
extended deadline of November 21, 2025. Dkt. 15. “Under Rule 41(b), a district
Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 25 Filed 12/08/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
court may dismiss an action sua sponte if the plaintiff fails to comply with court
orders.” 	Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th
Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Because Plaintiff failed to comply with
deadlines for service, including by violating the extended deadline set by this
Court, her claims against the unserved defendants should be dismissed.
Recommendation
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff
Nameah Helaire’s claims against Defendants Houston Police Department,
Harris County District Attorney’s Office, Christian Rome, and Daniel Nunez
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effectuate service
and for violating the October 27, 2025 Order (Dkt. 15). Helaire’s claims against
other defendants remain pending.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on December 8, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
n, Texa	asss.
______________________________________
Yvon	n	n	nn	neeee Y. Ho
Uniiittted States M	M	Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 25 Filed 12/08/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4