Williams v. Mairura et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ANICSHA WILLIAMS, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3230-S-BW
§
METHODIST HOSPITALS OF 	§
DALLAS, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Anischa Williams, appearing pro se, filed on February 23, 2026 a
Second Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Alternative Service. (Dkt.
No. 33 (“Mot.”).) For the reasons explained below, the Court grants her request for
an extension of time but denies the request to serve defendants by substitute service
because the request is not supported by a required affidavit.
I. BACKGROUND
Williams, a former operating room nurse, filed this action on November 24,
2025, against Defendant Methodist Hospitals of Dallas and associated individuals
asserting claims relating to race discrimination and retaliation, negligence, and other
causes of action. (See Dkt. No. 3.) Three of the individuals named as defendants in
this action have not been served with a summons and complaint as required by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4.
1 This pro se case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case
management by Special Order 3-251. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-2-
On December 11, 2025, the Court denied Williams’s first motion for substitute
service of Defendants Brenna Wright and Marvyn Davis because Williams had not
yet established sufficient diligence in attempting to serve these defendants through
authorized means, and because she had “not demonstrated by affidavit testimony
how particular alternative methods would be reasonably effective in giving the
defendants notice of the lawsuit.” (Dkt. No. 12 at 4-5.)
On January 23, 2026, the Court denied Williams’s next three motions seeking
to serve these same defendants and Ronald Roberson by alternative means. (Dkt.
No. 32.) The Court stated at the outset of its order that the denial was due to the
motions’ “lack [of] required evidentiary support.” (Id. at 1.) The Court pointed out
that, when a request for substitute service is premised on Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b), the
plaintiff must submit an affidavit that “strictly complies with the requirements of the
Rule.” (Id. (quoting Mockingbird Dental Grp., P.C. v. Carnegie, No. 4:15-CV-404-A,
2015 WL 4231746, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2015)).) The Court explained that
Williams’s motions were based solely on her unsworn filing and did not attest to the
unsuccessful attempts or explain with specificity the grounds supporting a belief that
the requested method(s) of service would be reasonably effective in giving each
defendant actual notice of the lawsuit. (Id. at 2.)
Williams filed the instant motion seeking an extension of her deadline under
Rule 4(m) and another request to serve the same three defendants by alternative
methods. She asks for Court authorization to serve these defendants by certified
mail, first-class mail with tracking, email, by leaving documents with an adult at the
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-3-
defendant’s listed residential address, or by affixing documents to the front door of
the residence with copies sent by mail. (Mot. at 2.) Again, Williams does not
present any affidavit in support of her motion for substitute service. Rather, she
again relies on her unsworn pleading and a collection of proofs of service
documenting process servers’ unsuccessful attempts to serve each of these defendants
in person.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Deadline to show proof of service
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 provides that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the
summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must
furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(1). After effecting service, a plaintiff must file proof of service with the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). If the plaintiff fails to serve a defendant “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,” unless
the plaintiff shows both (1) good cause for his failure to timely and properly effect
service and (2) good cause for the court to extend the time for service for an
appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Lewis v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 870
F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2017).
B. 	Substitute service
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that “an individual . . . may be
served in a judicial district of the United States by . . . following state law for serving
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-4-
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).
This Court is located in the state of Texas, and Plaintiff seeks to effect service
in Texas. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106 provides:
(a) Unless the citation or court order otherwise directs, the citation must
be served by:
(1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a copy of
the citation, showing the delivery date, and of the
petition; or
(2) mailing to the defendant by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the
citation and of the petition.
(b) Upon motion supported by a statement—sworn to before a notary or
made under penalty of perjury—listing any location where the
defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts
showing that service has been attempted under (a)(1) or (a)(2) at the
location named in the statement but has not been successful, the court
may authorize service:
(1) by leaving a copy of the citation and of the
petition with anyone older than sixteen at the
location specified in the statement; or
(2) in any other manner, including electronically by
social media, email, or other technology, that the
statement or other evidence shows will be
reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of
the suit.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106.
Under Texas Rule 106(b), if a plaintiff’s attempts to serve a defendant in
person or by registered or certified mail are unsuccessful, a court may authorize
substituted service only after receiving the required sworn statement and only in a
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-5-
manner that is reasonably calculated to provide notice. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b);
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. 1993). If a defendant
is absent or a nonresident of Texas, that defendant still may be served in the same
manner as a resident defendant. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 108.
Comment to 2020 Change to the Texas rule notes that a court may “permit
service of citation electronically by social media, email, or other technology. In
determining whether to permit electronic service of process, a court should consider
whether the technology actually belongs to the defendant and whether the defendant
regularly uses or recently used the technology.” Order Amending Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure 106 and 108a, Misc. Docket No. 20-9103, (Tex. Aug. 21, 2020),
available at https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449613/209103.pdf.
When a plaintiff demonstrates that the technology accounts belong to and
were recently used by the defendant, courts are more likely to find that electronic
service would be “reasonably effective” in giving notice of the lawsuit. See, e.g.,
Chrisenberry v. Ketcher, No. MO:21-CV-146-DC-RCG, 2022 WL 2762219, at *2
(W.D. Tex. May 18, 2022) (allowing substitute service by social media when plaintiff
showed that defendant had been active on his social media account in the past
month and plaintiff identified the account as the defendant’s through the account’s
photographs); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Plummer, No. 3:21-CV-2331-B, 2022 WL
1643958, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. May 23, 2022) (granting service by email when plaintiff
presented evidence that defendant’s email address belonged to defendant and was
used less than three months prior); Hernandez v. Erazo, No. SA-22-CV-01069-XR,
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-6-
2022 WL 17490682, at *1–2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2022) (finding service by email and
social media proper when the accounts belonged to respondent and petitioner had
previously used them to communicate with respondent).
As to the sworn statement requirement, “[t]he court may authorize substituted
service pursuant to Rule 106(b) only if the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit strictly
complies with the requirements of the Rule.” Mockingbird Dental Group, P.C., 2015
WL 4231746, at *1 (citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). The
supporting sworn statement must state (1) “the location of the defendant’s usual
place of business or usual place of abode or other place where the defendant can
probably be found” and (2) “specifically the facts showing that” traditional service
under Rule 106(a) has been attempted “at the location named in the statement but
has not been successful.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b). The plaintiff also must explain
how the requested method of alternative service is likely to give the defendant actual
notice of the lawsuit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2) (authorizing method that “the
statement or other evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant
notice of the suit”).
III. ANALYSIS
A. 	The Court extends Williams’s deadline to show proof of service as required
by Rule 4(m).
The Court finds good cause to extend Williams’s deadline to file proof of
service on Defendants Wright, Davis, and Roberson. Williams’s inability to serve
these defendants is not attributable to a lack of diligence. The Court extends
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-7-
Williams’s deadline to serve each of these defendants and file proof of service until
April 18, 2026, which should be ample time to accomplish service.
As explained below, Williams has not followed the rules or learned from prior
orders with respect to the showing she must make to obtain authorization for
substitute service. Going forward, the Court is unlikely to perceive good cause for
any further extension based on Williams’s inability to follow the requirements for
service or requesting alternative service. That is, Williams should not need any
further extension of the deadline.
B. 	Williams has not provided the required affidavit to support her request for
substitute service.
The facts alleged by Williams in her motion and the process servers’ proofs of
service document multiple failed attempts, suggesting Williams has diligently
attempted to serve Defendants Wright, Davis, and Roberson in person. Among
other things, she has shown attempts to serve these defendants at their workplace
and what is believed to be their respective residence.2 But Williams has not provided
the affidavit that is necessary under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106 to substantiate her request.
The Court therefore cannot authorize it. See Hill v. Amity One Tax, LLC, No. 3:25-
CV-510-L-BN, 2025 WL 1592957, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025) (“Hill’s motion
does not comply with these requirements because it is not supported by a sworn
2 Among the important facts that are not proved by sworn testimony is that the
places are the respective defendant’s usual place of business or abode. See Ancrum v. Lyft,
Inc., 722 F. Supp. 3d 642, 647 (N.D. Tex. 2024).
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-8-
statement. And, so, the Court must deny Hill’s request for substituted service at this
time.”).3
Although the Court must deny Williams’s motion for alternative service, it
addresses two of the methods for which she requests authorization. First, Williams
asks permission to serve the defendants by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(Mot. at 2.) She does not need Court authorization to serve process in this manner.
Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(a), mailing the summons and complaint by certified mail,
return receipt requested is a default manner of serving process, like personal service.
See Hill, 2025 WL 1592957, at *2. Similarly, Williams does not need the Court’s
approval to serve the defendants “by leaving documents with an adult resident at the
listed address.” (Mot. at 2.) Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), a person authorized to serve
process may do so by “leaving a copy of [the summons and complaint] at the
individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there[.]”
The Court denies Williams’s renewed motion for substitute service because
she has not met the requirements, which the Court must apply strictly.
3 Even if Williams had submitted an affidavit, she would not be entitled to an order
generally authorizing her to serve defendants by email or posting documents on the front
door, as she requests. Rather, an order would authorize her to serve a particular defendant
by sending documents to a particular identified email address or posting them at a particular
identified residence. It is incumbent on Williams to establish that delivering to the
particular email address or location would be reasonably effective in giving the respective
defendant notice of this lawsuit.
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-9-
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in part and extends her deadline to
serve Defendants Wright, Davis, and Roberson until April 18, 2026. The Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion requesting authorization to serve these defendants by
alternative methods.
SO ORDERED on March 3, 2026.
__________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 35 Filed 03/03/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID <pageID>