Cole v. United States Marshals Service

Background

Victor Demetrius Cole filed the complaint on June 4, 2024. His request to proceed without paying filing fees was granted, which entitled him to service of process by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). The USMS was served through the United States Attorney’s Office on August 12, 2024.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2), the USMS’s response was due October 11, 2024. It did not file a response by that date. The court then ordered the USMS to file either an agreement or a motion seeking more time. Cole filed a motion for default summary judgment based on the missed deadline and separately moved for appointment of counsel. The USMS moved for an extension until January 10, 2025, explaining that an inadvertent case-processing error at the United States Attorney’s Office prevented the case from being opened internally or assigned to an assistant United States Attorney.

Extension of time

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) permits a court to extend an expired deadline when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court considered prejudice, the length of the delay, the reason for it, and good faith.

The court noted that, accepting Cole’s allegations as true for this procedural issue, the USMS was withholding approval for lymphoma surgery ordered by Cole’s medical provider, causing Cole pain and discomfort. Although Cole sought only monetary relief in this lawsuit, the court found that the potential prejudice increased as time passed. The court also found the requested delay unreasonable because it would give the United States roughly five months after service to answer or otherwise respond. The reason for the delay was a significant but rare and inadvertent processing error, and the court found no reason to believe the USMS acted in bad faith.

The court concluded that the USMS’s failure to answer resulted from excusable neglect, but that the requested extension was too long. It granted in part and denied in part the USMS’s motion for an extension and ordered the USMS to file an answer or other response within 14 days.

Default summary judgment

Because the court granted additional time to respond, it found that the basis for Cole’s default summary-judgment motion no longer existed and that the USMS was not in default. The court therefore recommended that the motion be denied. The discussion describes the recommended denial as without prejudice, while the formal recommendation states simply that the motion be denied.

Appointment of counsel

The court denied Cole’s motion for appointment of counsel. It explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Applying factors concerning the case’s factual and legal complexity, Cole’s ability to investigate and present his claims, and the possibility of conflicting testimony, the court found that the case was not particularly complex. It also found that Cole had not shown he could not investigate the relevant facts and appeared able to express his positions and allegations.

Nature of the ruling and next steps

This document is an order and report and recommendation. The order denies appointment of counsel and grants in part and denies in part the extension motion. The report and recommendation recommends denying Cole’s default summary-judgment motion. The document states that the recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It allows specific written objections within 14 days, followed by 14 days for responses to objections.