Lewis v. The Walt Disney Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JACK K. LEWIS III,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-cv-1894-MTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Over a month ago, the Court ordered pro se Plaintiff Jack K. Lewis III to comply
with 	Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by serving Defendants no later
than March 31, 2026. 	Doc. [3]. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing that the Court
construes as a Motion for Extension of Time to do so. 	Doc. [5]. 	Upon review and
consideration, the Court determines that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested
extension given his diligence in attempting to meet the deadline. 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.”); cf. Hartis v. Chi. Title Ins. Co.,
694 F.3d 935, 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining, in another context, that the primary measure
of “good cause” is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the deadline). 	For that
reason, the Court will grant the extension. Wright v. First Student, Inc., 710 F.3d 782, 783
(8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“[I]f a plaintiff shows good cause for untimely service, then
the court must extend the period for service.”).
Case: 4:25-cv-01894-MTS Doc. #: 6 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
First, Plaintiff has sought additional time prior to the expiration of the service
deadline. See Myers v. Amrut Fusion LLC, 4:25-cv-0209-MTS, 2025 WL 1555357, at *1
n.* (E.D. Mo. June 2, 2025). 	Second, Plaintiff represents that he has reached out to
multiple process servers that declined to assist, and that he currently is “working with” one
he identifies as Missouri Process Serving. Doc. [5]. The Court finds that he has provided
more-than-conclusory representations that he has been diligent in attempting to complete
service within the required time. 	See Halvorsen v. Quantum Fin. & Bus. Intel., 4:24-cv-
1497-MTS, ECF No. 6 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 5, 2025) (finding that, to show good cause, a
plaintiff must provide facts, not merely conclusory representations, to demonstrate his
diligence in attempting service).*
The Court will provide Plaintiff with an additional twenty-one days to complete
service in this matter and file proof of such service. Thus, he will be required to serve all
Defendants no later than April 21, 2026. 	Though Plaintiff is pro se, the Court will not
extend this deadline any further without a showing by Plaintiff of his continued diligence
to complete valid service. See Hurtado v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 508 F. App’x 564, 565 (7th Cir.
2013) (noting a plaintiff’s pro se status does “not excuse him” from “exercising [] diligence
and timely complying with service-of-process rules”).
* Cutting against the finding of diligence is Plaintiff’s failure to have taken the important step of
presenting properly completed summonses to the Clerk of Court. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b).
Although a defendant may formally (or informally) waive service, it has no obligation to do so.
See Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998). And if Defendants do
not waive service here, Plaintiff cannot properly serve them without obtaining signed and sealed
summonses. Of course, if Defendants should decline to waive service, that mere declination will
not constitute good cause to further extend the service deadline. See Taylor v. Caplan, 4:24-cv-
1303-MTS, 2025 WL 26683, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2025); Lau v. Klinger, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1377,
1380–81 (S.D. Ga. 1999) (Nangle, J.).
Case: 4:25-cv-01894-MTS Doc. #: 6 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, Doc.
[5], is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve Defendants in this matter, and file proof of such
service, no later than 	Tuesday, April 21, 2026. 	If Plaintiff fails to timely do so, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice as to any unserved Defendant.
Dated this 26th day of March 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01894-MTS Doc. #: 6 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>