Jones v. Santoyo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL DARNELL JONES, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3247-G-BW
§
GUILLERMO SANTOYO, JR, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Darnell Jones, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on
November 25, 2025. (Dkt. No. 3.) He also filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (See Dkt. No. 5.) The undersigned recommended that
Senior United States District Judge A. Joe Fish deny Jones’s IFP Motion and
provided notice that Jones’s complaint was subject to judicial screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Dkt. Nos. 9, 11.)
On December 9, 2025, Jones filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12) and
paid the filing fee in this case. In light of his payment of the filing fee, his IFP
Motion (Dkt. No. 5) is DENIED as moot, and the Court WITHDRAWS the
December 2, 2025 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge recommending denial of the IFP Motion (Dkt. No. 9.)
By paying the filing fee, Jones has undertaken the obligation to bring
Defendants into this action by properly serving them with a summons and the
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full
case management.
Case 3:25-cv-03247-G-BW Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
amended complaint according to the processes prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4. Jones must prepare and request a summons for each Defendant
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a) and (b) and arrange to have each defendant served.
The Court specifically notes that Jones cannot be the individual who effects service
on each Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“Any person who is at least 18 years
old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.” (emphasis added)).
Additionally, Plaintiff must file with the Court a proof of service in accordance with
Rule 4(l).
The Court further advises Jones that proper service must be made and shown
to the Court through a filed proof of service no later than March 9, 2026, which is
90 days from the date he paid the filing fee. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Leeper v.
Carte Blanche, No. 3:23-CV-1091-E-BN, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50187, at *2-3 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 20, 2024). If Jones fails to show proof of valid service on each Defendant
by the deadline established by Rule 4(m), this case is subject to dismissal at to each
unserved Defendant unless Plaintiff shows both (1) good cause for the failure to serve
the Defendant and (2) good cause for the Court to extend the time for service for an
appropriate specified period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
(providing for dismissal, with or without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and obey
court orders).
Also before the Court is Jones’s December 9, 2025, motion seeking
authorization to file handwritten documents in this case. (Dkt. No. 14.) Jones
asserts that he is unable to type to do injuries to his fingers suffered during military
Case 3:25-cv-03247-G-BW Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
service. Having considered the motion and observing that Jones’s handwriting is
legible, the Court GRANTS Jones’s motion (Dkt. No. 14), and he may continue to
submit documents prepared using legible handwriting. See N.D. Tex. L. Civ. R.
7.2(a) (requiring a brief to be “printed, typewritten, or presented in some other legible
form”).
Finally, on December 16, 2025, Jones filed 39 pages comprising an
amalgamation of documents—some handwritten, some apparent excerpts from form
complaints or motions. (See Dkt. No. 16.) Some appear to request that the clerk of
court file motions on his behalf—e.g., File Motions for an Ex Parte Proceeding or
File Motions for All Amendments Rights. Interspersed in the filing are pages from a
standard form complaint, a certificate of interested parties, and a notice of appeal.
The Court does perceive any request for relief sought in the amalgamated filing. In
the event Jones is seeking Court action by the filing (Dkt. No. 16), it is DENIED
without prejudice. Jones may file a motion for relief sought in compliance with
N.D. Tex. L. Civ. R. 7.1.
SO ORDERED on January 14, 2026.
______________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03247-G-BW Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>