Lawrence v. Reed et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANNDELL R. LAWRENCE, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-0204-MTS
)
LARESHA REED, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Serve
Defendant Ada Farr. Doc. [53]. On January 23, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve
any unserved Defendants in this action no later than February 12, 2026, and warned that
failure to do so would result in dismissal of any unserved Defendant. Doc. [47] at 2. The
United States Marshal’s Office issued service on most of the named Defendants in this
case. See, e.g., Doc. [27].1 Defendant Farr, however, was not served because Defendant’s
last known address is a P. O. Box that cannot be served via the methods described in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2). See Doc. [29]; see also, e.g., Brady v. Roberts,
1:07-cv-02258-EWN, 2008 WL 4614306, at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 15, 2008) (acknowledging
that personal service “cannot be accomplished” at a post office box and remarking that
courts “need not require the U.S. Marshal or the Clerk of Court to search for” an unserved
1 This was before the Court vacated the portion of its prior Order erroneously authorizing Plaintiff to
proceed in forma pauperis. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (requiring the court to order service by a United
States marshal or other person specifically appointed “if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915), with Doc. [47] at 1.
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 55 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
defendant); Knapp v. Hickman, 2:05-cv-02520-FCD, 2009 WL 4828731, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
Dec. 9, 2009) (explaining that “personal service is not possible” on a post office box and
that “[i]t is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide an address sufficient for service”); Lee v.
Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (describing plaintiff’s
responsibility “to provide proper addresses for service”). The case docket reflects that
Defendant Ada Farr’s summons was returned unexecuted, and proof of non-service was
filed on November 06, 2025, over 100 days ago. Doc. [29].
Plaintiff now seeks additional time to serve Defendant Farr because he “does not
have any valid or current address of Defendant Farr.” Doc. [53]. He also seeks leave to
issue discovery to the Missouri Department of Corrections for the last known address of
the Defendant and any relevant information to locate Defendant. Id. The problem for
Plaintiff is that his Motion does not make an adequate showing of good cause sufficient for
an extension of the February 12, 2026, service deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring
a court to extend the time for service “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure”).
“Good cause” generally requires some showing of Plaintiff’s diligence with respect to
attempted service. See Bryant v. Brooklyn Barbeque Corp., 130 F.R.D. 665, 667 (W.D.
Mo. 1990) (noting most courts have concluded that “good cause will be found only if
plaintiff has been diligent in attempting to serve the complaint”); Attkisson v. Holder, 925
F.3d 606, 627 (4th Cir. 2019) (“Generally, for purposes of Rule 4(m), ‘good cause’ requires
some showing of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs.”); Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.,
694 F.3d 935, 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining, albeit in another context, that the primary
measure of “good cause” is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the deadline).
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 55 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion states only that he needs more time to complete service,
and Plaintiff lists a reason why that is so. But Plaintiff provides no description whatsoever
of any intervening effort expended to either (1) locate a valid or current address for
Defendant Farr, or (2) attempt service through other permissible means. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(e)(1) (permitting service in accordance with state law). Plaintiff and his counsel have
been on notice since November 06, 2026, that Defendant Farr’s address was insufficient
for personal service. Doc. [29]. The Court expressly ordered Plaintiff to serve any
unserved defendants over three weeks ago. Doc. [47]. There is no indication in the present
Motion that Plaintiff has taken any steps to comply with the Court’s January 23, 2026,
Order before now. The Court will not extend a deadline without a showing of good cause
meriting an extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (authorizing
courts to extend a deadline “for good cause”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Serve
Defendant Ada Farr, Doc. [53], is DENIED. An Order of Partial Dismissal without
Prejudice will be entered herewith.
Dated this 17th day of February 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 55 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>