Best v. Merchant
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Best v. Merchant, Judge Woods dismissed claims against David Hayes because he was not served within Rule 4(m)'s deadline.
Hilary A. Best’s claims against David Hayes were dismissed, and Hayes was directed to be removed from the case caption. The order does not state a disposition of the claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Best v. Merchant, Hilary A. Best named David Hayes as a defendant in a complaint filed April 22, 2024. The U.S. Marshals Service had tried to serve Hayes at the only address available from the New York City Department of Corrections, but no one by that name was known there.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. That deadline ended July 21, 2024, and the docket did not show that Hayes had been served. The court also found that no additional service address or reason to extend the deadline had been provided.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the claims against Hayes under Rule 4(m) and directed the Clerk of Court to remove Hayes—listed on the docket as “David Hays”—from the case caption.
The detailed version
- Best v. Merchant · No. 1:21-cv-00779
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
Hilary A. Best’s Fourth Amended Complaint, filed May 31, 2023, named David Hayes, a retired New York City corrections officer, as a defendant. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, and a summons was issued on June 9, 2023. The United States Marshals Service later reported that it could not complete service at the address provided by the New York City Corporation Counsel because no person named David Hayes was known at that address.
The court asked the Corporation Counsel to confirm whether that was the only service address available for Hayes. The Corporation Counsel confirmed that the address was the only one on file with the New York City Department of Corrections. Best’s Fifth Amended Complaint, filed April 22, 2024, again named Hayes. The docket did not show that Hayes had been served with the summons or complaint.
Rule and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court may dismiss the action against that defendant or order service by a specified deadline; if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service period for an appropriate time. The court stated that this requirement also applies to plaintiffs proceeding without a lawyer.
Because the Fifth Amended Complaint was filed on April 22, 2024, the 90-day service period ended on July 21, 2024. The court had sought any updated address available through the Department of Corrections, and the Corporation Counsel confirmed both in correspondence and at a December 6, 2024 conference that there was no other service address. Best stated that he had no additional information about where Hayes could be served and presented no reason why the claims against Hayes should not be dismissed for failure to serve.
Ruling
The court dismissed the claims against David Hayes under Rule 4(m). It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Hayes, who was listed on the docket as “David Hays,” from the case caption and to mail Best a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.