KNIGHT v. CITY OF DETROIT (2024)

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS BY ALTERNATE METHOD AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

In February 2023, Plaintiff Tyrese Knight brought numerous constitutional and state-law claims against Defendants the City of Detroit, its police department, and four of its police officers for stopping and arresting him on February 4, 2021. ECF No. 1. Specifically, he alleges that one or more of the Defendants chased a motor vehicle, which stopped near where Plaintiff was lawfully walking. Upon approaching the intersection, Plaintiff attempted to communicate with one or more of the Defendants, who responded by running at Plaintiff with a firearm drawn, ordering him to stop moving and to get on his knees. Then Plaintiff was handcuffed, causing severe injury to his right wrist, and forcefully injured his left hip. Despite being handcuffed, Plaintiff was left near a curb in the middle of a winter storm until eventually being released from custody. In sum, he claims to have suffered handcuffing, the physical use of force, and an attempted unlawful arrest, which involved taking Plaintiff to the ground and excessively tightening the handcuffs. Id.

Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to serve Detroit Police Officers Otis Funches, Ryan M. Ruloff, Matthew Webb, and J. Erwin in the following ways:

1. Plaintiff contacted the Detroit Law Department seeking its cooperation by requesting an Acknowledgment of Service to all Defendants. This request was denied.

2. Plaintiff contacted attorney Jonathan Hiltner, who represents common Defendants in another case, seeking their cooperation by requesting an Acknowledgment of Service. This request was also denied.

3. Plaintiff contacted the 6th and 12th precincts of the Detroit Police Department to provide service of process on these Defendants, again without success.

4. Unable to gain acknowledgment of service with counsel for the City of Detroit and being informed that some Defendants were no longer employed or were on leave, Plaintiff employed a licensed Michigan private investigator, Dart Group Incorporated, to attempt personal service of process on the Defendants.

ECF No. 6. Defendants have in no way assisted in facilitating service.

Therefore, Plaintiff now seeks permission to perfect service upon the remaining three Defendants in the following ways:

1. Email Service. A copy of the summons, complaint, and jury demand would be emailed to Detroit's counsel of record: christopher.michels@detroitmi.gov.

2. First-Class Mail. Copies of the summons, complaint, and jury demand would be mailed first class to their last known addresses:

• Otis J. Funches. 18067 Littlefield St., Detroit, MI 48235-1466.

• Ryan M. Ruloff. 27096 Dartmouth St., Madison Heights, MI 48071-3236.

• Matthew Webb. 18067 Littlefield St., Detroit, MI 48235-1466.

ECF No. 14.

“In a federal proceeding, an individual may be served by ‘following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.’ ” Moseley v. Regency Transp., 525 F. Supp. 3d 823, 825 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1)). In Michigan, a resident or nonresident person may be served by:

1. delivering a summons and a copy of the copy to the defendant personally; or

2. sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and delivery restricted to the addressee. Service is made when the defendant acknowledges receipt of the mail. A copy of the return receipt signed by the defendant must be attached to proof showing service under subrule (A)(2).

Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(A). If a party shows that “service of process cannot reasonably be made as provided by [these rules],” then the court may exercise its discretion with an order to permit service of process “in any other manner reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.” Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(J)(1). Such service includes email, publication, or posting the summons and complaint on the door of defendant's address. See Reyes-Trujillo v. Four Star Greenhouse, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-11692, 2021 WL 534488, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2021). Leave for alternate service requires “(1) that service cannot be made by the prescribed means, and (2) that the proposed alternate method is likely to give actual notice.” Moseley, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 825 (quoting Krueger v. Williams, 300 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Mich. 1981)).

Plaintiff has demonstrated that service cannot be made by personal service. ECF No. 14 at PageID.220–21. And Plaintiff's alternate-service proposals are likely to provide actual notice to Defendants—especially considering that Detroit has not disputed whether the above-listed addresses are the last known for each Defendant. So Plaintiff will be directed to perfect service by (1) USPS first-class mail to each Defendant's last-known residential address, (2) posting service on the front door of the Defendant's last-known addresses, and (3) notice in the Detroit News once per week for three consecutive weeks. See Mich. Ct. R. 2.106(D). Having satisfied its burden, Plaintiff's motion will be granted.

And Plaintiff will be granted 30 days additional days to perfect service of process because there is good cause and 30 days will provide an “appropriate period” of time to complete alternate service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (allowing extension of deadline for good cause); see also Kyles v. Cnty. of Oakland, No. 2:22-CV-12973, 2023 WL 2307874, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2023) (granting extension because plaintiff made “colorable efforts” to locate and to serve defendant).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Use Alternative Service, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED.

Further, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to ISSUE a new summons that is valid for 30 days.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to effectuate service upon Defendants Otis Funches, Ryan Ruloff, and Matthew Webb, on or before June 3, 2024, by (1) USPS first-class mail to their last-known residential addresses, (2) posting service on the front door of their last-known addresses, and (3) notice in the Detroit News once per week for three consecutive weeks.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a proof of each method of service on or before June 17, 2023.

SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ, United States District Judge