Rankin v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BOBBY RANKIN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-623
JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, ET. AL
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, Nicki
Garnier, Ivan R. Parker, and Hector Acosta’s motion to dismiss for improper
service.1 	Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion. 	For the following
reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion to
dismiss.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2025, plaintiff Bobby Rankin filed a complaint in this
Court listing the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and
Deputy Does 1-6 as defendants. 2 	The complaint concerns allegations of
constitutional violations stemming from a March 31, 2024, interaction
between Rankin and Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office deputies. The Sheriff’s
1 	R. Doc. 16.
2 	R. Doc. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00623-SSV-DPC Document 20 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Office contends, and Rankin does not contest, that it never received service
of the original complaint.
On 	June 	2, 	2025, 	Rankin 	amended 	his 	complaint, 	alleging
constitutional violations against the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office and
Lieutenant Nicki M. Garnier, Deputy Hector Acosta, and Deputy Ivan R.
Parker (the individual defendants). 3 Plaintiff served the amended complaint
on the Sheriff’s Office and the individual defendants by July 22, 2025, well
within the ninety-day limit. 4
The Sheriff’s Office and the individual defendants now move to
dismiss, alleging that the Sheriff’s Office is an improper party and that all
defendants are entitled to dismissal without prejudice because the Sheriff’s
Office was not served within the ninety-day limit. 5
The Court considers the motion below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “if a defendant is
not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,” the Court must
3 	R. Doc. 8.
4 	R. Docs. 10-14.
5 	R. Doc. 16. While the title of the motion includes a reference to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6), defendants make no arguments under that rule. The
Court declines to rule without any argument on whether plaintiff has
stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Case 2:25-cv-00623-SSV-DPC Document 20 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 5

3
dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m). Amending a complaint does not reset the 90-day service period as to
the original defendant. See, e.g., Brait Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, 644
F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 2011); Moore v. Walton, 96 F.4th 616, 626 (3d. Cir. 2024);
Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129, 1148-49 (10th Cir. 2006); see
also 4B Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1137
Time Limit for Service, (4th ed. 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Sheriff’s Office
Rankin did not serve the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office within ninety
days of filing the initial complaint. Plaintiff has not provided any reason for
the failure to effect proper service and thus has not made a showing of good
cause for the failure to effect proper service. As the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s
Office was a defendant in the original complaint and never received timely
service, the Court dismisses plaintiff’s claims against the Jefferson Parish
Sheriff’s Office without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
B. Individual Defendants
The Fifth Circuit has not addressed the question of whether the filing
of an amended complaint restarts the 90-day period during which plaintiff
must serve newly added parties. 	However, the courts of appeals that have
Case 2:25-cv-00623-SSV-DPC Document 20 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 5

4
considered the issue have concluded that if the amendment adds new parties
to the lawsuit, the 90-day period to serve those new parties begins to run
from the date of the amendment. See, e.g., Brait Builders Corp., 644 F.3d at
9; Moore v. Walton, 96 F.4th at 626; Bolden; 441 F.3d at 1148-49 (10th Cir.
2006); Carmona v. Ross, 376 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); see also
4B Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1137 Time
Limit for Service, (4th ed. 2025).
The individual defendants argue that they should be dismissed because
they were not served within ninety days of the original complaint. This Court
finds persuasive the decisions of the First, Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits
holding that an amended complaint resets the ninety-day limit as to newly
added parties. 	Id. 	Here, the individual defendants were served well within
ninety days from June 2, 2025. 	All three individual defendants’ summons
were returned executed on July 22, 2025. 6 	Therefore, Rankin properly
served the individual defendants. The motion to dismiss for untimely service
as to the individual defendants is denied.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s claims
against the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
6 	R. Docs. 10-14.
Case 2:25-cv-00623-SSV-DPC Document 20 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 5

5
failure to effect timely service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss as to the remaining defendants.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of October, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00623-SSV-DPC Document 20 Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 5