Rutledge v. Woodall
1:23-cv-00281
S.D. Miss.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mike Rutledge, an inmate, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging medical malpractice related to care received at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution.
- The sole defendant, Dr. Woodall, allegedly denied Rutledge an MRI after a foot injury, advising non-urgent care; Rutledge claims ongoing disability and seeks $10,000 in damages.
- Rutledge was granted in forma pauperis status, and the court attempted service on Dr. Woodall via his last-known address provided by a former employer; service was unsuccessful.
- The court repeatedly notified Rutledge that it was his duty to assist in locating Dr. Woodall and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal without prejudice.
- Rutledge, citing incarceration and lack of resources, stated he could not obtain an address for Woodall and took no further substantive steps to remedy service or communicate with the court.
- The court ultimately dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to provide a valid address for service of process as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to provide valid address for service | Rutledge: Incarceration prevents locating Dr. Woodall | Woodall: Not directly stated (unlocated) | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to provide valid address |
| Duty to perfect service in forma pauperis | Rutledge: Limited ability while imprisoned | Not stated | Plaintiff must still assist; court appropriately dismissed |
| Adequacy of court’s efforts | Rutledge: Did not argue inadequacy | Not stated | Court fulfilled obligations; further steps on plaintiff |
| Effect of pro se/inmate status | Rutledge: Claimed it hindered his ability | Not stated | Status does not excuse failure under Rule 4(m) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2013) (pro se status does not excuse failure to effect service or ignorance of Rules)
- Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 1996) (discussing consequences of dismissal without prejudice and when such dismissal is warranted)
- Armant v. Stalder, 351 F. App’x 958 (5th Cir. 2009) (approval of dismissal where plaintiff does not remedy service defects despite warning)