Ridgel v. Williams et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MELISSA RIDGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORPORAL KORBIN TAYLOR
WILLIAMS, in his individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-684-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Special Entry of Appearance and Motion to Dismiss
of Corporal Korbin Taylor Williams and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 12]. Plaintiff filed her
response [Doc. No. 16], to which Defendant replied [Doc. No. 17].
Plaintiff’s Allegations
On the morning of October 3, 2023, Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent
injuries as the result of a car wreck [Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 8, 12]. That morning, Defendant
Williams was conducting a dispatch check for warrants on a car in which Plaintiff was a
passenger. Id. ¶ 8. After conducting the check, he turned on the emergency lights on his
patrol car and attempted to make a traffic stop. Id. ¶ 9. But instead of pulling over, the
driver accelerated through an intersection and fled. Id. Defendant Williams initiated a
pursuit which reached speeds of over 120 miles per hour. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. The chase ended
when the fleeing car collided with another car at an intersection. Id. ¶ 10.
Case 5:25-cv-00684-D Document 19 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Procedural Background
On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff sued Corporal Korbin Taylor Williams and the City of
Shawnee, asserting constitutional and common law violations [Doc. No. 1]. Plaintiff issued
an electronic summons to each Defendant [Doc. No. 2]. Proof of service as to the City of
Shawnee was filed on August 20, 2025 [Doc. No. 3]. On September 9, 2025, Jeffrey
Hendrickson and William Nester each filed an entry of appearance on behalf of both
Defendants [Doc. Nos. 4, 5]. The next day, September 10, 2025, both attorneys filed an
amended entry of appearance to reflect their appearance on behalf of only the City of
Shawnee, not Defendant Williams [Doc. Nos. 8, 9]. Defendant Williams filed this motion
to dismiss on October 10, 2025 [Doc. No. 12].
Legal Standard
“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” FED. R. CIV. P.
3. A plaintiff must serve a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. F ED. R.
C IV. P. 4(m). If the plaintiff fails to do so, the court “must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service must be made within a specified
time.” Id. “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the
time for service for an appropriate period.” Id.
Discussion
Defendant Williams asserts that he was not served within the 90-day service window
under F ED. R. C IV. P. 4(m). Further, Williams argues the statute of limitations has since
expired on Plaintiff’s claims, so the suit should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff argues
that the stricken entries of appearance [Doc. Nos. 4, 5] established service on Defendant.
Case 5:25-cv-00684-D Document 19 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Further, Plaintiff argues that even if service was not established by the initial entry of
appearance, she has established good cause under F ED. R. C IV. P. 4(m) for the Court to
grant an extension for her to serve Defendant.
Although Oklahoma law recognizes that “[a]n acknowledgement on the back of the
summons or the voluntary appearance of a defendant is equivalent to service,” O KLA. S TAT.
tit. 12, § 2004(C)(5), the Court disagrees with Plaintiff that the one-day entry of appearance
on behalf of Defendant Williams is sufficient to establish service. Both attorneys filed
amended entries of appearance the following day fixing the error, and the amended entries
of appearance govern. The Court finds that service was not effected on Defendant Williams
within the 90-day period.
Although Defendant was not properly served within the 90-day period, the Court
finds that good cause exists for extension of the service deadline. Plaintiff made several
attempts to serve Defendant—including mailing service to Defendant, leaving a note on
Defendant’s door, and requesting a waiver of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) [Doc. No.
16, at 4].
Further, “[r]elief may be justified . . . if the applicable statute of limitations would
bar the refiled action.” Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 842 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting
F ED. R. C IV. P. 4(m) advisory committee’s note (1993)).1 Here, it is undisputed that the
accident took place on October 3, 2023. “The statute of limitations period for a § 1983
1 As Defendant acknowledges, federal and Oklahoma law do not require service to be
effected within the statute of limitations period. The Court finds that good cause exists for
extension of the service deadline, so dismissal due to a lapse in the statute of limitations at
this point would be improper.
Case 5:25-cv-00684-D Document 19 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4

4
claim is dictated by the personal injury statute of limitations in the state in which the claim
arose,” which in Oklahoma is two years. McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th
Cir. 2011) (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); O KLA. S TAT . tit. 12,
§ 95(A)(3)). Because the statute of limitations expired in October 2025, dismissal of the
claims against Defendant Williams now would prohibit Plaintiff from refiling these claims
against him. The Court finds that good cause has been shown to extend the service deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Special Entry of Appearance and Motion
to Dismiss of Corporal Korbin Taylor Williams and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 12] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to effect service of process on
Defendant Corporal Korbin Taylor Williams is extended 60 days from the entry of this
Order. Failure to serve Defendant Corporal Korbin Tayor Williams within this timeframe
may result in dismissal of the action against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 rd day of December, 2025.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00684-D Document 19 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4