Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Alonzo Villalpando filed suit against UniFirst Corporation, UniFirst Uniform Services—Dallas, and UniFirst H.R. Compliance on September 25, 2025. His civil complaint form was otherwise incomplete, but included an EEOC right-to-sue letter issued June 26, 2025.
On October 6, 2025, the magistrate judge instructed Villalpando to prepare summonses, have them issued, serve each defendant with the summons and complaint, and file proof of service by December 26. Villalpando later sought a 90-to-120-day extension to obtain counsel, citing holiday-related difficulties speaking with attorneys. The court found no good cause for his failure to serve but granted a two-month extension, until February 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Brian McKay recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The record showed that Villalpando had not served any defendant by the extended deadline, had not filed proof of service, and had taken no other action in the case.
Rule 4 places responsibility for timely service on the plaintiff. Although a pro se litigant must receive notice before a sua sponte Rule 4(m) dismissal, pro se status and unfamiliarity with procedural rules do not establish good cause. Villalpando had received notice and additional time, but did not show reasonable diligence in attempting service or good cause for another extension.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff must serve each defendant and file proof of service within Rule 4(m)’s deadline.
- A request for more time to find counsel does not itself excuse failure to complete service.
- After notice and an extension, failure to show diligence or good cause supports dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that procedural service requirements apply equally to represented and self-represented litigants. Courts may provide notice and limited additional time, but plaintiffs must still take concrete steps to serve defendants.
Because the recommended dismissal is without prejudice, it does not resolve the merits of Villalpando’s claims. Any objection to the report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days of service.