Byron Scott Wright v. State of Georgia , 620 F. App'x 884 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-12563 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12563
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00287-HLM
BYRON SCOTT WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF GEORGIA,
POLK COUNTY,
BALDWIN COUNTY,
RANDALL HINES,
Ph.D. Interim Reginal Hospital Administrator,
MICHAEL L. MURPHY,
Judge, Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 16, 2015)
Case: 15-12563 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Before HULL, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Byron Scott Wright, who is civilly committed and proceeding pro se,
appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming violations
of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Wright’s § 1983
action was dismissed for failure to timely serve process on the named defendants
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Wright failed to serve the defendants
within 120 days of filing his lawsuit, as demanded by Rule 4(m), or within the 14-
day extension ordered by the district court. After careful review of the record, we
affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal without
prejudice of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a defendant under
Rule 4(m). Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th
Cir. 2007). We also review the district court’s denial of a motion to extend time to
serve process for abuse of discretion. Id. Under this standard, we must affirm
“unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has
applied the wrong legal standard.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259
(11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
On or after filing a complaint, “the plaintiff may present a summons to the
clerk for signature and seal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b). However, the plaintiff is
2
Case: 15-12563 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 3 of 4
responsible for ensuring that the summons and complaint are served within the
time required by Rule 4(m). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). Pursuant to Rule 4(m),
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is
filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—
must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or
order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff
shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Good cause exists “when some outside factor, such as
reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented
service.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281 (quotation omitted). But Rule 4(m)
grants a district court the discretion to extend the time for service of process even
absent a showing of good cause. Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d
1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).
On appeal, Wright makes two “good cause” arguments. Wright first claims
that he kept in touch with the clerk’s office and was never informed that he needed
to take further steps. However, Wright does not say that the clerk’s office in any
way impeded his serving process or that he failed to effect service because he
relied on faulty advice from the clerk’s office. Wright next claims that Central
State Hospital, the facility at which he is committed, did not help him get his
paperwork notarized or make copies. However, Rule 4 does not require
notarization of a summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1) (describing the required
contents of a summons). And once the district court granted him a 14-day
3
Case: 15-12563 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 4 of 4
extension, Wright was on notice of his responsibility to find a means to copy his
documents. Although Wright eventually requested an extension to comply with
the 14-day deadline, he did so only after that time period had lapsed. Wright has
not shown good cause for his failure to serve the defendants.
A district court may extend the time for service of process even absent a
showing of good cause. However, Wright had already been given a 14-day
extension after the initial 120 days had passed. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing Wright’s complaint without prejudice after he failed once
again to serve the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
4