Harris V City Of Bloomington

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Rakeem Harris filed a Complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against City of Bloomington and several individual defendants. On July 14, 2025, Harris filed a Motion for Entry of Default, asserting all Defendants were properly served on June 20, 2025. The Court denied the motion because proper service of process was not demonstrated - individual defendants were not served personally as required by Federal Rule 4(e)(2) or Illinois law, and the City of Bloomington was not served with the chief executive officer or city clerk as required. Plaintiff must serve Defendants properly by September 5, 2025, or face dismissal of the case.

Issues

  • The court must determine whether Plaintiff properly served Defendant City of Bloomington, a municipal corporation, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) and Illinois law. The court found that the City was served via Leslie Yocum rather than the chief executive officer as required by Rule 4(j)(2)(A) or the mayor or city clerk as required by 735 ILCS 5/2-211, thus proper service was not established.
  • The court must determine whether Leslie Yocum, identified as 'Corporate' Leslie Yocum, was an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of the individual Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(C). The court found that nothing was submitted to establish Yocum was such an authorized agent.
  • The court must determine whether Plaintiff Rakeem Harris properly served individual Defendants Nicholas Doage, Jeff Linden, Taylor Hallatt, Timmothy Carleton, Jerrad Freeman, and Spencer Busch in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and Illinois law to establish personal jurisdiction for entry of default judgment. The court found that none of the individual Defendants were served personally as required, and the affidavit of service showing service at the McLean County Government Center to 'Corporate' Leslie Yocum did not establish proper service or that Yocum was an authorized agent to receive service on behalf of the individual Defendants.

Holdings

The Court denied Plaintiff Rakeem Harris's Motion for Entry of Default against Defendants City of Bloomington and individual defendants Nicholas Doage, Jeff Linden, Taylor Hallatt, Timmothy Carleton, Jerrad Freeman, and Spencer Busch. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to properly serve the Defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and Illinois law, as none were served personally or by an authorized agent. Plaintiff must serve the Defendants by September 5, 2025, or face dismissal of the case.

Remedies

The Court denied the Motion for Entry of Default because proper service of process was not established. Plaintiff must serve the Defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 by September 5, 2025. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case.

Legal Principles

The court held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), a party against whom default judgment is sought must fail to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure must be shown by affidavit or otherwise. The Plaintiff bears the burden of showing proper service of process to establish personal jurisdiction over each Defendant. This includes complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) for individual service and Rule 4(j)(2) for municipal corporations, as well as applicable Illinois law (735 ILCS 5/2-203(a) and 735 ILCS 5/2-211). Without meeting this burden, the Court cannot direct entry of default.

Precedent Name

  • Nelson v. Swift
  • Harris v. McLean County, et al.
  • Silva v. City of Madison
  • Cardenas v. City of Chicago
  • United States v. Kramer
  • Abu-Shawish v. United States
  • Relational, LLC v. Hodges

Cited Statute

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  • Illinois Compiled Statutes
  • United States Code
  • Civil Rights Act

Judge Name

Judge Ronald L. Hanna

Passage Text

  • Individual Defendants Doage, Linden, Hallatt, Carleton, Freeman, and Busch were not properly served. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that an individual may be served by: (1) 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; or (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
  • Here, the Court is not satisfied that the Plaintiff properly served the Defendants such that the Court may assert jurisdiction over each of them. United States v. Kramer, 225 F.3d 847, 857 (7th Cir. 2000) (observing that default judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction is void).
  • As for Defendant City of Bloomington, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) provides: A state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created governmental organization that is subject to suit must be served by: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or (B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant. And Illinois law provides: In actions against public, municipal, governmental or quasi-municipal corporations, summons may be served by leaving a copy with the mayor or city clerk in the case of a city. 735 ILCS 5/2-211. Here, Defendant City of Bloomington was also served via an individual identified as Corporate Leslie Yocum rather than the chief executive officer as required by Rule 4(j)(2)(A) or the mayor or city clerk as required by 735 ILCS 5/2-211.