Green v. City of Duncanville et al
| Keandre Green |
| City of Duncanville and Jai Johnson |
| 3:2025cv02147 |
| August 11, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Civil Rights: Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 6, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by City of Duncanville, Brandon Dunn, Raegan Goodwin, Jai Johnson. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (East, Kenneth) |
Filing 24
ELECTRONIC Order Dismissing ONLY Defendants Brandon Dunn and Raegan Goodwin. Plaintiff Keandre Green filed this case in federal court on August 11, 2025. See Doc. No. 1 (Plaintiff's Original Complaint). On December 1, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve the named Defendants by December 4, 2025, or else the Court would dismiss any unserved Defendants without prejudice. Doc. No. 10. On day after the deadline, Plaintiff filed a facially proper executed return of service as to Defendant City of Duncanville (Doc. No. 14) but failed to properly serve Defendants Jai Johnson, Raegan Goodwin, or Brandon Dunn (the "Individual Defendants"). See Doc. No. 15 at 3 ("[t]he Court concludes that the 'Proofs of Service' reflect service was not properly effectuated on the Individual Defendants under the federal or Texas rules governing service."). However, on January 15, 2026, the Court provided Plaintiff "ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY" to properly effectuate service on the Individual Defendants no later than January 26, 2026, and to file executed returns of service as to each Individual Defendant by January 28, 2026. Id. at 6 (emphasis original); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court further warned Plaintiff, in no uncertain terms, that if he failed to properly effectuate service on any of the individual Defendants, the Court would immediately grant the Individual Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) (Doc. No. 11). See id. at 7; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) (providing that a defendant may by motion assert a defense of insufficient service of process).Plaintiff failed to abide by the Court's January 15, 2026, order. In lieu of compliance, Plaintiff filed a Letter "Request for Limited Extension of Time to Effect Service on Individual Defendants." Doc. No. 17. Plaintiff stated that, due to the recent winter storm in the DFW metroplex, his "licensed process server was stranded outside Dallas and unable to safely access the City or locate the Individual Defendants for service." Id. The Court promptly reminded Plaintiff that, per the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements, any request for extension of a deadline must be made through a proper motion under the applicable standard. See Doc. No. 19; see also Doc. No. 2 (Court's standing order directing all counsel to review and comply with the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements). On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Limited Extension of Time to Effect Service on Individual Defendants, requesting the Court extend his time to serve the Individual Defendants through February 3, 2026. Doc. No. 20. That same day, the Court granted the motion for extension and provided Plaintiff yet another chance to properly effectuate service on the Individual Defendants by February 3, 2026, and to file executed returns of service with the Court by February 4, 2026. See Doc. No. 21. Further, the Court provided an unequivocal warning (including all-caps emphasis) that if Plaintiff once again failed to abide by the Court's order, the Court would "IMMEDIATELY" grant the individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support as to any unserved Individual Defendant(s). Id. (emphasis original); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) ("[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant[.]"). In response to the Court's February 2, 2026, order, Plaintiff only managed to timely effectuate service and file an executed return of service as to Defendant Jai Johnson. See Doc. No. 23. Defendants Raegan Goodwin and Brandon Dunn still remain unserved, and the Court's lenience has now run out. Plaintiff continually fails to abide by the Court's orders, and the Court does not find from the record that the circumstances warrant yet another extension. Accordingly, the Court incorporates its January 15, 2026, order (Doc. No. 15) here and GRANTS the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) ONLY as to Defendants Raegan Goodwin and Brandon Dunn for insufficient service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) AND also under Rule 4(m) for failure to timely serve Goodwin and Dunn. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and Rule 4(m), the Court hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE ONLY Defendants Raegan Goodwin and Brandon Dunn. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5); id. 4(m).The Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 11) remains PENDING as to Defendant Jai Johnson. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/5/2026) (chmb)
|
| Filing 23 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Jai Johnson ; served on 2/3/2026. (Moore, Justin) |
| Filing 22 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Objections and Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss filed by Keandre Green with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit(s) Plaintiffs Objections and Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss) (Moore, Justin) |
|
Filing 21
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Extension of Time to Effect Service on Individual Defendants (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 20). On January 15, 2026, the Court entered an order allowing Plaintiff one final opportunity to serve the Individual Defendants by January 26, 2026, and to file executed returns of service by January 28, 2026; otherwise, the Court would immediately dismiss those Defendants on their pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11). Doc. No. 15. On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Letter requesting an extension of time to serve the Individual Defendants (Doc. No. 16). The Court entered an order the next day declining to take any action on the Letter request because it was not made by formal motion as required by the undersigned. Doc. No. 19. Plaintiff now moves the Court to extend the deadline to serve the Individual Defendants, which passed one week ago.The Court recognizes the Motion is opposed. Doc. No. 20 at 1. However, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend his deadline just until tomorrow, February 3, 2026. The Court has discretion in these types of issues and, in light of requested deadline, does not see the efficiency in ordering an expedited response. Accordingly, the Court has considered the reasons set forth therein and GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff SHALL serve the Individual Defendants by February 3, 2026, and SHALL file executed returns or waiver of service by February 4, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to do so or fails to effectuate proper service on Defendants Jai Johnson, Raegan Goodwin, and Brandon Dunn, the Court will IMMEDIATELY grant the pending Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) (Doc. No. 11) and dismiss that Individual Defendant(s). Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's request for an extension was not made under the applicable standard. Here, Plaintiff's time to serve the Individual Defendants expired on January 26, 2026, and this Motion was filed today, February 2, 2026. See also Doc. No. 17 (Plaintiff's Letter request was filed January 28, 2026, two days after the deadline). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) governs requests made after the party's time to act has expired. Under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), Plaintiff must demonstrate excusable neglect for his failure to meet the deadline as well as make a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Yet Plaintiff refers only to the existence of good cause justifying the extension. Any further requests for an extension or modification of a deadline made BY ANY PARTY that are not on the proper showing will be summarily denied regardless of any filing-related deadline.(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/2/2026) (chmb)
|
| Filing 20 MOTION to Extend Time Plaintiff's Motion For Limited Extension of Time to Effect Service on Individual Defendants filed by Keandre Green (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Moore, Justin) |
|
Filing 19
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Letter Request for Limited Extension of Time to Effect Service (the "Letter") (Doc. No. 16). As set forth in the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements, a party seeking an extension of a deadline must file a motion requesting said relief under the applicable standard. See also L. Civ. R. 7.1 (motion practice rules). The Court takes no action on the extension requested in this Letter, which the Court notes is not signed by Plaintiff's counsel, Justin Moore.The Court entered its standing order (Doc. No. 2) in this case the same day the Complaint was filed. In that order, the Court directs "all counsel of record to review and comply with the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements as well as the Local Civil Rules for the Northern District of Texas[.]" Plaintiff's counsel of record SHALL immediately review this Court's Specific Requirements as well as the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas. Any further instances of non-compliance with either may result in an order directing Plaintiff and his counsel to show cause why they should not each be sanctioned. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/29/2026) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 18
ELECTRONIC Order Unfiling Pleading.The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Objections and Response (the "Response") (Doc. No. 16) to Defendants' pending motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 9 & 11). The Court UNFILES Plaintiff's Response. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(e), Plaintiff's time to respond to Defendant City of Duncanville's motion ran on December 17, 2025. Plaintiff's time to respond to the Individual Defendants' motion ran on December 22, 2025. Plaintiff did not move for an extension of time to file his Response and the Court did not otherwise permit Plaintiff to file the untimely Response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (when a party's time to act has expired, the court may grant an extension on the party's formal motion showing of good cause and that "the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.").Accordingly, the Court UNFILES Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 16). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/29/2026) (chmb)
|
| Filing 17 STATUS REPORT Letter for Request for Limited Extension of time to Effect Service filed by Keandre Green. (Moore, Justin) |
| Filing 16 ***UNFILED PER 18 ELECTRONIC ORDER*** RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Keandre Green re: #9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, #11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Attachments: #1 Affidavit(s)) (Moore, Justin) Modified on 1/29/2026 (kcr). |
|
Filing 15
ORDER: The Court will allow Plaintiff ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY to properly serve Defendants Jai Johnson, Raegan Goodwin, and Brandon Dunn no later than January 26, 2026. Plaintiff shall file executed returns of service or waivers of service as to each Individual Defendant by January 28, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to effectuate proper service on any Individual Defendant, the Court will immediately grant the pending Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) as to that Individual Defendant. The Court will not extend this deadline absent the required showing. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/15/2026) (chmb)
|
| Filing 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to City of Duncanville ; served on 11/11/2025; Brandon Dunn ; served on 11/11/2025; Raegan Goodwin ; served on 11/11/2025; Jai Johnson ; served on 11/11/2025 . (Moore, Justin) Modified text on 12/8/2025 (kxm). |
|
Filing 13
ORDER - The Court STAYS all discovery in this case. Because the Court sua sponte stays discovery herein, Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Brief in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 12) is denied as moot. Because the qualified immunity issue must be decided, the Court finds good cause to defer entering a scheduling order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(2) (setting time constraints on the issuance of a scheduling order "unless the judge finds good cause for delay"). The Court will enter an order addressing deadlines, if necessary, after deciding the Motion.There appears to be no further reason at this time to maintain the file as open for statistical purposes. The Clerk is therefore instructed to submit a JS-6 form to the Administrative Office, thereby removing this case from the statistical records. Nothing in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this case. Should further proceedings become necessary, the Court will reopen the case and this matter will proceed in the same manner as if this Order had not been entered. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/4/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by City of Duncanville, Brandon Dunn, Raegan Goodwin, Jai Johnson with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (East, Kenneth) |
| Filing 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Brandon Dunn, Raegan Goodwin, Jai Johnson with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)Attorney Kenneth E East added to party Brandon Dunn(pty:dft), Attorney Kenneth E East added to party Raegan Goodwin(pty:dft), Attorney Kenneth E East added to party Jai Johnson(pty:dft) (East, Kenneth) |
|
Filing 10
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not yet filed proof of service on each named Defendant as required by the federal and local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l); L. Civ. R. 4.1. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file proof of service on each Defendant by December 4, 2025. If Plaintiff has not yet served Defendants Jai Johnson, Raegan Goodwin, and/or Brandon Dunn, the Court shall DISMISS the unserved Defendants without prejudice and without further notice absent good cause shown by Plaintiff by this same deadline. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/1/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by City of Duncanville with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (East, Kenneth) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kenneth E East on behalf of City of Duncanville. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (East, Kenneth) |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Keandre Green. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Moore, Justin) (Main Document 7 flattened on 8/19/2025) (kxm). |
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to City of Duncanville, Brandon Dunn, Raegan Goodwin, Jai Johnson. (kcr) |
| Filing 5 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (kcr) |
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint (Doc. No. 1) but failed to contemporaneously file a certificate of interested persons as required by this Court's Local Civil Rules. L. Civ. R. 3.1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file the required document by August 12, 2025. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/11/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/11/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC STANDING ORDER: This Court requires all counsel of record to review and comply with the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements as well as the Local Civil Rules for the Northern District of Texas upon making an appearance in a matter before this Court. These can be found at # Judge Specific Requirements and # Local Civil Rules . Further, counsel shall refer to this Court's Judge Specific Requirements and the Local Civil Rules prior to calling chambers with any questions. The Court calls specific attention to Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), which addresses the disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence, and Local Civil Rule 83.10, which address the requirement of local counsel. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/11/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Keandre Green. (Filing fee $405; Receipt number ATXNDC-15725913) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Moore, Justin) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
