Chronicles v. Loyola University New Orleans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA CHRONICLES 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	No. 25-2211
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS 	SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Joshua Chronicles’s (“plaintiff”) “renewed”
motion1 to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to “immediately effect service under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and to extend the Rule 4(m) deadline.”2
Plaintiff states that “[m]ore than 30 days have now elapsed” since summons
was issued.3 Plaintiff is concerned that because he “must rely entirely on the U.S.
Marshals Service” to effectuate service, he is “at risk of prejudice from the upcoming
Rule 4(m) deadline, despite having complied fully with Court instructions.”4 He also
suggests that “continued delay creates a perception of uneven fairness and impairs
confidence 	in 	the 	judicial process” 	and 	that 	“[e]nsuring 	service 	progression 	is
necessary to avoid any appearance of impartiality.”5 He asks this Court to “direct the
U.S. Marshals Service to immediately effect service of process upon Defendant.”6
1 See R. Doc. No. 44.
2 The Court notes that it has already denied plaintiff’s previous motion asking this
Court to enforce and expedite service in this matter. See R. Doc. No. 36 (dismissing
R. Doc. No. 30).
3 R. Doc. No. 44, at 1.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 2 (internal quotations omitted).
6 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 48 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff also seeks a 90-day extension of the service deadline provided by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).7 He represents that this will “avoid penalizing
Plaintiff for the Marshals Service’s inadvertent delay.”8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states:
If 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.
Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on October 29, 2025,9 meaning the ninety-day deadline
contemplated by Rule 4(m) is January 27, 2026. The Court therefore finds no reason
at this time to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to effectuate service of process
“immediately” or extend the Rule 4(m) deadline. Should the need arise, plaintiff may
renew his motion at a more appropriate time.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion10 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 11, 2025.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 See R. Doc. No. 1.
10 R. Doc. No. 44.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 48 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 2