Watson v. Kobach

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CARL E. WATSON, I,
Plaintiff,
v.
KRIS KOBACH, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-1174-EFM-BGS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Carl Watson brought this civil complaint on August 13, 2025, alleging claims arising
from the DMV’s denial of his application for a State of Kansas driver license. Doc. 1. He is
proceeding pro se and paid the required filing fee.1 On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint naming as Defendants Kris Kobach (the Attorney General of Kansas) and the Kansas
Department of Revenue. See Doc. 15. Plaintiff utilized the United States Marshals Service
(“USMS”) to effectuate service of the summons and complaint. He successfully served Kris
Kobach, who has filed a motion to dismiss. 2 See Doc. 17. However, he has not attempted to serve
the Kansas Department of Revenue. To date, Plaintiff has taken no action to effect service on that
Defendant.
On February 9, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause noting that more than 90
days had elapsed since the filing of the amended complaint and that Plaintiff had failed to effect
service on the Kansas Department of Revenue as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
1 Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The Court construes his filings liberally and holds him to a less stringent standard
than trained lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). But the Court does not assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall, 935 F.2d at
1110.
2 Plaintiff was granted an extension until April 3, 2026, to respond to the motion to dismiss. See Doc. 29.
Case 6:25-cv-01174-EFM-BGS Document 31 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Doc. 30. The Court directed Plaintiff to show cause by February 20, 2026, why the undersigned
should not recommend dismissal of his claims against that Defendant for failure to effectuate
service. Id. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Show Cause Order, nor has he otherwise
demonstrated good cause for the failure to timely serve the Kansas Department of Revenue.
I. 	Failure to Effectuate Service
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) governs the time limit for service. Rule 4(m) provides
that “[i]f a defendant is not served 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 or order that service be made within a specified time.” Where a plaintiff establishes good
cause for failing to timely effect service, “the court must extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.” Id. See also Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995). If a
plaintiff cannot show good cause, the court must determine whether to grant a permissive extension
of time to effect service prior to dismissing the case. Espinoza, 52 F.3d at 841.
a. 	Mandatory Extension
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for failing to timely serve the Kansas Department of
Revenue. The Tenth Circuit construes Rule 4(m)’s good-cause requirement narrowly, “to protect
only those plaintiffs who have been meticulous in their efforts to comply with the Rule.” Despain v.
Salt Lake Area Metro Gang Unit, 13 F.3d 1436, 1438 (10th Cir. 1994). For instance, courts may find
good cause where a defendant has actively evaded service. Hendry v. Schneider, 116 F.3d 446, 449 n.2
(10th Cir. 1997). By contrast, “inadvertence or negligence alone do not constitute ‘good cause’ for
failure of timely service.” In re Kirkland, 86 F.3d 172, 176 (10th Cir. 1996). Nor do mistakes of
counsel or ignorance of the rules generally constitute good cause. Id. Whether good cause exists is a
determination committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Hendry, 116 F.3d at 449.
Case 6:25-cv-01174-EFM-BGS Document 31 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Here, Plaintiff has made no showing that would satisfy Rule 4(m)’s good-cause standard.
The record reflects that more than 90 days elapsed after the filing of the amended complaint, yet
Plaintiff did not attempt to serve the Kansas Department of Revenue, request additional time, or
provide the Clerk or the USMS with the information necessary to effect service. There is no
indication that the Kansas Department of Revenue evaded service or otherwise impeded Plaintiff’s
efforts. Nor has Plaintiff identified any circumstance beyond his control that prevented timely
service. Instead, Plaintiff simply failed to act and then failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause
Order. Such inaction does not constitute the type of meticulous effort required to establish good
cause under Rule 4(m). See Despain, 13 F.3d at 1438; In re Kirkland, 86 F.3d at 176. Accordingly, a
mandatory extension of time is not warranted.
b. 	Permissive Extension
Even when a plaintiff fails to establish good cause for a mandatory extension, the court
retains discretion to grant a permissive extension of time. “[A] plaintiff who has failed to show
‘good cause’ for a mandatory extension of time may still be granted a permissi[ve] extension of time
within the district court’s discretion.” Espinoza, 52 F.3d at 841. In exercising that discretion, courts
consider several factors, including whether the applicable statute of limitations would bar refiling,
whether the defendant had notice of the lawsuit, and whether the defendant would be prejudiced by
an extension. Id. at 842; Mehus v. Emporia State Univ., 295 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1273 (D. Kan. 2004)
(reciting relevant factors).
Although the Court retains discretion to grant a permissive extension, the circumstances
here do not warrant one. Plaintiff has offered no explanation for his failure to serve the Kansas
Department of Revenue, nor has he responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order despite being
expressly directed to do so. Nothing in the record suggests that the Kansas Department of Revenue
had notice of this action, as it has never been served and has not appeared. Plaintiff bears the
Case 6:25-cv-01174-EFM-BGS Document 31 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
burden to prosecute his case and to comply with Rule 4. On this record—where Plaintiff has taken
no steps to effect service and has not demonstrated diligence—granting an additional extension
would merely prolong the proceedings without justification. Accordingly, a permissive extension of
time is not appropriate.
II. 	Conclusion
The undersigned therefore recommends that the District Judge dismiss without
prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against the Kansas Department of Revenue pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service. Plaintiff has neither demonstrated good
cause nor established that a discretionary extension is warranted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and D. Kan. R. 72.1.4(b), Plaintiff
may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy. Failure to timely file objections waives appellate review of both factual
and legal determinations. See In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated February 23, 2026, at Wichita, Kansas.
/s/ BROOKS S EVERSON
Brooks G. Severson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 6:25-cv-01174-EFM-BGS Document 31 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4