Taylor v. Western Oklahoma State College et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LATAEVYON TAYLOR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-45-SLP
)
WESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE )
COLLEGE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
AMENDED ORDER1
On April 14, 2026, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this action should
not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process within 90 days
of the filing of the Complaint. See Order [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff responded to the Order
and filed a Motion of Non-Dismissal and Extension [Doc. No. 14]. Upon review, the Court
GRANTS a permissive extension of 45 days for Plaintiff to effectuate service on the
remaining Defendants in this case.
The Court must extend the deadline for service when a plaintiff shows good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In the absence of good cause, however, the Court has discretion to
grant a permissive extension. Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995).
1 The Court previously issued an Order, [Doc. No. 15], granting Plaintiff a permissive extension
of forty-five (45) days to effectuate service on all remaining Defendants in this case. The Court
issues this Amended Order to correct a scrivener’s error in its previous Order. The Court’s previous
Order, [Doc. No. 15], was dated May 9, 2026, instead of June 9, 2026. For the avoidance of doubt,
Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days from June 9, 2026 to effectuate service on all
remaining Defendants in this case.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-SLP Document 16 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to warrant a mandatory extension. In the Motion,
Plaintiff makes several conclusory assertions about his service efforts to date. First,
Plaintiff states that “due to the uncontrollable circumstances on March 15th the process
server could not serve the defendant due to no one being available to correctly serve the
defendant.” [Doc. No. 14]. Plaintiff provides no proof of the unsuccessful service attempt
and, further, does not explain which Defendant he intended to serve. Second, Plaintiff
states that he “has made good faith efforts to serve Defendants with in the 90 – day period”
without providing any proof of those service efforts in his Motion. Id. Plaintiff only
attaches a single “Affidavit of Process Server” which purports to be proof of service on
Defendant Western Oklahoma State College.2 [Doc. No. 14-1]. Third, Plaintiff states that
he “was also undergoing medical treatment for a serious mental health condition, which
impacted service.” [Doc. No 14]. Again, Plaintiff provides no support for this assertion.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to warrant a mandatory extension
for service of process.
However, the Court GRANTS a permissive extension of forty-five (45) days from
June 9, 2026 for Plaintiff to effectuate service on the remaining Defendants in this case.
Although the Court is extending the service time, Plaintiff is cautioned that any future
requests for extensions of service time must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
Absent such showing, the Court does not anticipate granting any further extensions of
service time and Plaintiff’s case against any unserved Defendants may be dismissed for
2 At this time, the Court does not speak to the sufficiency of service of process on Defendant
Western Oklahoma State College.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-SLP Document 16 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 3

failure to obtain service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wright v. Fulkerson, 52 F.3d 339 (10th Cir.
1995) (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s action for failure to obtain service of process).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-SLP Document 16 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 3