Chiasson v. Webre et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KOBI CHIASSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 24-1666

CRAIG WEBRE, LAFOURCHE PARISH
SHERIFF, ET AL.

SECTION “P”(1)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 28, 2024, plaintiff, Kobi Chiasson, a former state prisoner who is proceeding in
this case pro se, filed this federal civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims of
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, failure to protect and state law claims of
negligence related to a July 2023 incident at the Lafourche Parish Correctional Center.
1
Chiasson
named Sheriff Craig Webre and “John Doe Officers of the LaFourche Parish Sheriff’s Office” as
defendants.
2
According to the complaint, Chiasson intended to “amend the complaint to state the
true name and capacity of Does when such have been ascertained.”
3

Defendant Webre filed an answer to the complaint on February 10, 2025.
4
On April 29,
2025, the Court held a hearing to determine whether Chiasson intended to identify by name the
John Doe Officers of the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office referenced in the complaint as well as
the existence of a July 2023 incident report.
5
As the Court was unable to reach Chiasson at the
telephone number he provided, he did not participate in the hearing.
6
At the hearing, counsel for

1
Rec. Doc. 1. Chiasson was originally represented by counsel. The Court granted former counsel’s motion to withdraw
on October 21, 2024. Rec. Doc. 12.
2
Id. at 1.
3
Id. at 3 ¶ 13.
4
Rec. Doc. 16.
5
Rec. Doc. 25.
6
Id.
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 27 Filed 08/19/25 Page 1 of 4

2

Sheriff Webre advised of the existence of a Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office file related to
Chiasson that includes the July 2023 incident report.
7

In order to assist Chiasson with identifying the John Doe Officers, the Court ordered
defense counsel to mail Chiasson a copy of the file related to the July 2023 incident referenced in
the complaint.
8
Chiasson was directed to notify the Court in writing by May 15, 2025 in the event
he did not receive the file.
9
The Court further ordered that, in the event Chiasson wished to identify
by name the John Doe Officers, he should file an amended and superseding complaint by July 1,
2025.
10
On May 15, 2025, defendant Webre filed a notice of compliance indicating that a copy of
Chiasson’s jail incident reports, inmate activity log, medical screen, medical records,
booking/intake paperwork and a jail incident report log were mailed to Chiasson on May 1, 2025.
11

To date, Chiasson has not filed an amended complaint identifying the John Doe Officers.
Chiasson filed his case over a year ago. Chiasson was provided jail documents to assist
him in ascertaining the identities of the John Doe Officers so he could then file an amended
complaint and substitute their actual names. The Court has given Chiasson the benefit of nearly
two months beyond his deadline, but he has failed to comply with the Court’s instruction.
Despite having ample time and opportunity to do so, Chiasson has not identified the John Doe
Officers nor filed an amended his complaint. Additionally, there is nothing in the record
reflecting that Chiasson attempted to serve process on the John Doe Officers.
12
Chiasson’s
inaction represents a lack of interest in pursuing claims against the John Doe Officers.

7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Rec. Doc. 25.
11
Rec. Docs. 26 and 26-1.
12
The Court previously advised Chiasson that he was responsible for ensuring service of any amended complaint and
summons upon any personally identified John Doe Officers within ninety days pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) and
(m). Rec. Doc. 25 at 2.
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 27 Filed 08/19/25 Page 2 of 4

3

“[T]he court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss ...
without prejudice” claims against a defendant that was not timely served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
(emphasis added). The court may extend the time for service for an appropriate period if the
plaintiff shows good cause. Id. But ultimately, the plaintiff is responsible for having the
summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(1); See also Coleman v. Groom, No. 3:19-cv-1155, 2019 WL 5069065, at *3 (N.D. Tex.
Sept. 18, 2019) (recognizing that a delay the proceedings was attributable to the pro se plaintiff
alone, warranting dismissal), adopted, 2019 WL 5068169 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2019), appeal
dismissed, 847 F. App’x 219 (5th Cir. 2021). Here, Chiasson fails to show good cause to extend
the time for service further, and the Court has no reason to believe that an extension would be
effective.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not authorize [a plaintiff] to maintain suit
indefinitely against a fictitious defendant” such as a John Doe. Warner v. Lear Corp., No. 3:15-
CV-1878-D, 2017 WL 930829, at *10 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2017) (citing 5A Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1321, at 382 (3d ed. 2004 & Supp. 2016)).
Here, the Court advised Chiasson on April 29, 2025 that he should file an amended complaint by
July 1, 2025 should he wish to identify the John Doe Officers by name. He has taken no action and
has not served the John Doe Officers despite the passage of more than ninety days since he filed
his complaint. Accordingly, his claims against John Doe Officers should be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to serve process and failure to prosecute this case against these defendants.
RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against John Doe Officers of
Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed.
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 27 Filed 08/19/25 Page 3 of 4

4
R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted
by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences
will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of August, 2025.
_______________________________________
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19th
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 27 Filed 08/19/25 Page 4 of 4