Opinion
1:06-CV-00692 (GLS/RFT).
June 20, 2007
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: (Murphy), Sean D. Murphy, Plaintiff, Pro Se, Lynn, Massachusetts, (Thompson), David R. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro Se, State Prison, Warren, Maine.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: KRIS T. JACKSTADT, ESQ., (Watson, Miller), OFFICE OF KRIS T. JACKSTADT, Albany, New York, (No Appearance on Record), (Best Western Rensselaer), NANNETTE R. KELLEHER, ESQ., (Unnamed Troy Police Officers), Office of John W. Bailey Associates, P.C., Albany, New York.
ORDER
Pro se plaintiffs Murphy and Thompson filed an action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against several defendants, including unnamed Troy police officers. See Dkt. No. 1. Pending is the unnamed officers' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 12(b)(2). See Dkt. No. 42. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted.
Under the Federal Rules, service of a summons and complaint must be made within 120 days of the commencement of the action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Moreover, "while it is permissible for a plaintiff who is unaware of the names of putative defendants to name them as John Doe defendants, he must thereafter be diligent in ascertaining their names within the applicable limitation period[.]" Covington v. Warden of C-95 Detention Ctr., 93-CV-1958, 2004 WL 1753284, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2004).
The Local Rules of the Northern District of New York further provide that service of process must be completed within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. See N.D.N.Y. R. 4.1(b). "This expedited service requirement is necessary to ensure adequate time for pretrial discovery and motion practice." Id. "In no event shall service of process be completed after the time specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4." Id.
In the instant case, the complaint was filed on June 5, 2006. See Dkt. No. 1. Despite the passing of the service of process deadline and a further extension of time, the plaintiffs have failed to identify and serve the unnamed defendants. See Dkt. No. 14, 26. Therefore, since service has not been completed, plaintiffs lack personal jurisdiction over the unnamed defendants. Accordingly, defendants motion to dismiss is granted. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
On August 8, 2006, Judge Treece ordered the plaintiffs to take the necessary steps to identify and properly serve the unnamed Troy Police Officers. See Dkt. No. 14. On November 21, plaintiffs moved for a 120 day extension of time. See Dkt. No. 24. In response, Judge Treece granted the plaintiffs an additional 60 days to name and serve the unnamed defendants. See Dkt. No. 26. Judge Treece also informed the plaintiffs that they would not be granted any further extensions. See id.
ORDERED, that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 42) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED as to the unnamed defendants; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of this Order to the parties.