he'has failed to allege Goodman acted under color of law. As a result, the official capacity claims against Goodman must be dismissed. III. Personal Capacity Claims Against Goodman Acting in his personal capacity, Goodman has moved to dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction), 12(b)(3) (improper venue), and 12(b)(5) (insufficient service of process). A. Serv d Cir.1980)); Micklus, 632 F.2d at 240 (rejecting the argument that once the defendant was served in his official capacity, he was properly before the court in both his individual and official capacities); Scherer v. United States, 241 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1282 (D.Kan.2003) (same). Knowledge of the lawsuit, alone, is insufficient. See Omni Capital Int’l, 484 U.S. at 104, 108 S.Ct. 404 (<HOLDING>). For example, in Kirkendall v. University of
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct recognizing the prejudice of an extension to a defendant who would be required to litigate events that occurred more than eight years earlier holding something more than denial of receipt is required holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city