IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TERI L. MITCHELL
Civil No. 05-5191
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER,
GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
O R D E R
Now on this 13th day of September, 2006, come on for
consideration the following motions:
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (document #24);
Defendant’s Amended Motion To Dismiss (document #27);
Defendant’s Motion To Stay Scheduling Order (document
and from said motions, and the response thereto, the Court finds
and orders as follows:
Plaintiff alleges discrimination by defendant on the
basis of disability, gender and race. She filed a pro se
Complaint For Employment Discrimination on November 30, 2005.
Due to problems with both the pleading itself (which did not
name John E. Potter, Postmaster General, as a defendant)and
service thereof (which was not attempted as to Potter and was
attempted by regular rather than certified or registered mail on
the United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas),
the Court allowed plaintiff to amend her Complaint to name John E.
Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 33 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 6
Mitchell v. U.S. Postal Service
Potter as the defendant, and allowed an additional thirty days for
her to perfect service.
In the Court’s view, the Order of June 2, 2006, made it clear
to plaintiff that in order to properly bring suit against the U.S.
Postal Service, she must not only name John E. Potter, Postmaster
General of the United States, as the defendant; she must also
accomplish valid service of process on the named defendant.
Moreover, that Order made it clear that actual notice of the
pendency of the action would not be sufficient in lieu of proper
service of process. See the Court’s June 2, 2006, Order
generally, and paragraph 6, specifically.
In his Motion To Dismiss, defendant contends that the
Amended Complaint is insufficient, as it does not repeat the
allegations of the initial Complaint a