Ex parte Robert Holland, [Ms. SC-2024-0345, Oct. 4, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Sellers, J.; Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur; Mitchell, J., concurs specially, which Parker, C.J., joins; Cook, J., concurs specially; Shaw, J., concurs in the result) issues a writ of mandamus to the Jefferson Circuit Court directing the dismissal of Pleasant Grove Police Officer Robert Holland based on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff alleges she was injured when she dove for cover in her home when bullets entered her home as a result of Pleasant Grove police officers Holland and Marque Gresham exchanging gunfire with a fleeing suspect near her home.
The officers were substituted for fictitious parties on the final day of the statute of limitations period. Ms. *3. Plaintiff requested certified mail service of her amended complaint on both officers but a summons was issued only for Officer Gresham. Ms. **3-4. In issuing the writ, the Court holds:
Here, the record confirms that, although Moore intended to serve both Holland and Gresham by certified mail, only one summons was generated – the one generated for and directed to Gresham. The record also confirms that only one certified-mail fee was paid – the one paid in connection with service upon Gresham. In the absence of a summons generated for Holland and payment of a corresponding certified-mail fee, we can only assume that the delay in perfecting service upon Holland within the statute-of-limitations period occurred as a result of user error during the electronic-filing process, and not because of any error on the part of the circuit clerk… Thus, viewed objectively, Moore’s unexplained failure to perform the necessary tasks required to effectuate service at the time of filing shows a lack of the required bona fide intent to have Holland immediately served.
Ms. **8-9.