Williams v. Mairura et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ANICSHA WILLIAMS, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3230-S-BW
§
METHODIST HOSPITALS OF 	§
DALLAS, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff Anicsha Williams, appearing pro se in this
action, filed a Motion for Alternative Service requesting authorization to serve
Defendants Brenna Wright and Marvyn Davis by alternative means. (Dkt. No. 11.)
For reasons explained below, Williams’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Williams, a former operating room nurse, filed this action on November 24,
2025, against Defendant Methodist Hospitals of Dallas and associated healthcare
professionals asserting claims for race discrimination and retaliation, negligence, and
other causes of action. (See Dkt. No. 3.) She seeks $40 million in damages. (Id. at
5.)
On November 26, summonses for Defendants Brenna Wright and Marvyn
Davis were returned unexecuted. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) Deborah Ogungbeja, the person
1 This pro se case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case
management by Special Order 3-251. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

-2-
who attempted to serve process, stated by affidavit that she attempted to serve
Wright and Davis at 1201 E. US-287 in Midlothian, Texas, which is a hospital
facility. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 11 at 2.) As to Wright, Ogungbeja states that she attempted
service at 8:38 a.m. on November 25 and first contacted someone who identified
herself as “the resident” who said Wright “resides but refused to respond.” (Dkt.
No. 9 at 1.) Ogungbeja states that she spoke to a law enforcement officer who
refused to accept service and suggested that she contact the hospital’s legal
department. (Id.) Ogungbeja reports either a similar or the same contact recorded at
8:46 a.m. (Id. at 1-2.) As to Davis, Ogungbeja states that she first attempted service
on November 24 at 3:54 p.m. and spoke to someone who said Davis was gone for
the day and directed her to return the following day after 7:00 a.m. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1.)
Ogungbeja states that she returned on November 25 at 8:33 a.m. and—in what
appears to be the same attempt to serve Wright—spoke to a law enforcement officer
who refused to accept service and recommended reaching out to the hospital’s legal
department. (Id.)
Williams filed the instant motion the following day seeking authorization to
serve Wright and Davis by alternative means. (Dkt. No. 11.) According to the
motion, Wright and Davis were “clocked in and present” at the hospital when
service was attempted, Davis left the area to avoid being served, and both defendants
were “hiding” or “avoiding service.” (Id. at 2.) Williams seeks authorization to
serve Wright and Davis by serving a human resources employee at the hospital,
certified mail to their workplace, leaving the summons and complaint with any adult
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

-3-
employee of the hospital, posting at the entrance of the hospital, or electronic means.
(Id. at 3.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that “an individual . . . may be
served in a judicial district of the United States by . . . following state law for serving
a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where
the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
This Court is located in the state of Texas, and Williams seeks to effect service
in Texas. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106 provides:
(a) Unless the citation or court order otherwise directs, the citation must
be served by:
(1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a copy of
the citation, showing the delivery date, and of the
petition; or
(2) mailing to the defendant by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the
citation and of the petition.
(b) Upon motion supported by a statement—sworn to before a notary or
made under penalty of perjury—listing any location where the
defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts
showing that service has been attempted under (a)(1) or (a)(2) at the
location named in the statement but has not been successful, the court
may authorize service:
(1) by leaving a copy of the citation and of the
petition with anyone older than sixteen at the
location specified in the statement; or
(2) in any other manner, including electronically by
social media, email, or other technology, that the
statement or other evidence shows will be
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

-4-
reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of
the suit.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106.
So, under Texas Rule 106(b), if a plaintiff’s attempts to serve a defendant in
person or by registered or certified mail are unsuccessful, a court may authorize
substituted service only after receiving the required sworn statement and only in a
manner that is reasonably calculated to provide notice. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b);
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. 1993).
As to the sworn statement requirement, “[t]he court may authorize substituted
service pursuant to Rule 106(b) only if the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit strictly
complies with the requirements of the Rule.” Mockingbird Dental Grp., P.C. v.
Carnegie, No. 4:15-CV-404-A, 2015 WL 4231746, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2015)
(citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). The supporting sworn
statement must state (1) “the location of the defendant’s usual place of business or
usual place of abode or other place where the defendant can probably be found” and
(2) “specifically the facts showing that” traditional service under Rule 106(a) has
been attempted “at the location named in such affidavit but has not been successful.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court concludes that alternative service is not appropriate at this time.
First, Williams has not established a sufficient degree of diligence in the efforts made
to serve Wright and Davis by means authorized by Rule 4 (or Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(a)
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

-5-
incorporated therein) to justify the alternative means requested. What Williams has
shown is one unsuccessful attempt to serve Wright and two unsuccessful attempts to
serve Davis at their workplace. See CT Cash LLC v. Anns Boyz Logistics Inc, No. 3:23-
CV-788-S, 2023 WL 8816379, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2023). She makes
averments about the defendants being “on the clock” and actively evading service,
but many of these facts underlying these assertions are not provided by affidavit
testimony. Moreover, Williams has not explained what additional investigative
measures, if any, have been taken to find these defendants at alternative locations to
serve them personally or via certified mail as authorized by Texas law. See Velarde v.
Decker Truck Line, Inc., No. EP-22-CV-00298-DCG, 2022 WL 15527755, at *2 (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 27, 2022). Additionally, Williams has not demonstrated by affidavit
testimony how particular alternative methods would be reasonably effective in giving
the defendants notice of the lawsuit. Finally, the timing of the motion and materials
submitted by Williams suggest she might be prematurely resorting to alternative
service based on a belief that it would benefit her with respect to the merits of her
case. (See Dkt. No. 11 at ECF pp. 6-7.)
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Alternative Service (Dkt. No. 11) without prejudice to refiling the motion after
making sufficient additional efforts to effect service according to Rule 4.
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

-6-
SO ORDERED on December 11, 2025.
__________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03230-S-BW Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>