Davis v. The City of Selma, 2:25-cv-00101

Erik Davis, proceeding pro se, initiated this action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which was later transferred to the Southern District of Alabama.
The original complaint was struck as an impermissible shotgun pleading; Davis was given leave to amend and pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
Davis paid the $405 filing fee after an initial deadline extension, negating the need for IFP consideration.
Davis filed a motion for leave to amend with a proposed amended complaint, despite having the right to amend as a matter of course pre-service.
The Court accepted the amended complaint and clarified that it is now the operative pleading.
As Davis is not proceeding IFP, he is responsible for serving process on defendants, and the Court extended the deadline for service to June 30, 2025.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amending Complaint Pre-Service	Sought leave to amend	N/A (no opposition required)	Plaintiff entitled to amend as of right
Service of Process Responsibility	N/A	N/A	Plaintiff must serve all defendants
Extension of Service Deadline	N/A	N/A	Deadline for service extended
Dismissal for Failure to Serve	N/A	N/A	Case may be dismissed if not timely

Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff is responsible for timely serving process when not proceeding in forma pauperis)
Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006) (amending complaint does not restart service deadline for previously named defendants)