United States District Court, D. Kansas
BRENDA A. FEARS, Plaintiff,
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A. Fears brings suit pro se against the Unified
Government of Wyandotte County, Nancy Burns and ASFME.
See Employment Discrimination Complaint (Doc. #1)
filed November 22, 2017. On March 16, 2018, the Court ordered
plaintiff to show cause in writing why pursuant to Rule 4(m),
Fed. R. Civ. P., it should not dismiss without prejudice her
claims against ASFME for failure to obtain service within 90
days after filing the complaint. See Notice And Order To
Show Cause (Doc. #13). Plaintiff did not respond and on
April 11, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
claims against ASFME. See Order (Doc. #14). On April
17, 2018, plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider its order
and allow her additional time to respond. See Motion For
Reconsideration (Doc. #15). On April 30, 2018, the Court
entered an order allowing plaintiff until May 15, 2016 to
show cause why she had not filed a return of service or
otherwise demonstrated service on ASFME. See Order
(Doc. #17) at 1-2. The Court advised that if plaintiff wished
to pursue her claims against ASFME, she must also ask the
Court to (1) set aside the order dismissing the claims
against ASFME and (2) extend the time for her to obtain
service on ASFME. See id. at 2.
the Court's order, on May 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a form
document entitled “Proof of Service.” Doc. #19.
The document has boxes to check to indicate what type of
service was made. See id. at 1. Plaintiff checked
the last box, labeled “Other.” See id.
In that area, plaintiff wrote “Certified Mail”
and “Unified Government[, ] Nancy Burns, ASFME.”
Id. Attached to the filing is a U.S. Postal Service
(“USPS”) certified mail receipt with tracking
number 7017 0190 0000 2458 7595. See id. at 2. On
the certified mail receipt form, the lines which indicate
where the item was sent are left blank. See id. Also
attached is a USPS printout for that tracking number which
states that “[y]our item has been delivered to the mail
room at 8:49 a.m. on December 29, 2017 in Kansas City, KS
66101.” Id. at 3.
initial matter, the “Proof of Service” which
plaintiff filed does not demonstrate service on ASFME.
Although the record is not clear, it appears that ASFME may
be a corporation, partnership or association. Pursuant to Rule
4(h)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., plaintiff may serve such an
entity 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, i.e. Kansas, or
where service is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(e)(1). Kansas law provides that service of
process on a corporation, partnership or association must be
(1) [s]erving an officer, manager, partner or a resident,
managing or general agent;
(2) leaving a copy of the summons and petition or other
document at any of its business offices with the person
having charge thereof; or
(3) serving any agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process, and if the agent is one
authorized by statute to receive service and the statute so
requires, by also mailing a copy to defendant.
K.S.A. § 60-304(e). Kansas law further requires that
“[s]ervice by return receipt delivery on an officer,
partner or agent must be addressed to the person at the
person's usual place of business.” Id.
plaintiff's filing does not show that she has satisfied
the service of process requirements under federal or Kansas
law. In particular, plaintiff has not shown that she served
an officer, manager, partner or agent of ASFME, or where any
such service was made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)
and K.S.A. § 60-304(e). Moreover, plaintiff has not
asked the Court to set aside the order dismissing the claims
against ASFME or extend the time for her to obtain service on
ASFME. See Order (Doc. #17) at 2. On this record,
the Court will not reconsider its Order (Doc. #14)
dismissing without prejudice the claims against ASFME.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion
For Reconsideration (Doc. #15) filed April 17, 2018 is
 Plaintiff also filed a “Proof of
Service” which indicates that she served Doug Bach by
certified mail. See Doc. #18 filed May 4, 2018 at 1.
The record does not reflect who Bach is, where he was served,
or how he may be related to the parties in this case.
 In the Notice And Order To Show
Cause (Doc. #13), the Court noted that plaintiff may
have intended to name “AFSCME” instead of
“ASFME. Id. at 2 n.5. The Court stated that it
would not change the party name without direction from
plaintiff. See id. AFSCME, or American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, is a public services