Pickens v. Powell , 188 F. App'x 258 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   July 7, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-60605
    Summary Calendar
    ROCKIE D. PICKENS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    VIMAL POWELL, Inmate Legal Assistance Program Technician,
    in his individual capacity,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 4:03-CV-427
    --------------------
    Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Clement, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Rockie D. Pickens, Mississippi inmate # 71454, seeks to
    proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district
    court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint under FED. R. CIV.
    P. 4(m) for failure to serve the defendant.   Pickens argues that
    he was entitled to rely on the United States Marshal’s Service to
    serve Powell and that it failed to effect service by not serving
    Powell personally at his home address.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 05-60605
    -2-
    By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Pickens is challenging
    the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken
    in good faith.   See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir.
    1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3).      Because
    Pickens was IFP, he was entitled to rely on the Marshal’s Service
    to effect service of his complaint on Powell.    See 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2); Rochon v. Dawson, 
    828 F.2d 1107
    , 1110 (5th Cir. 1987).   If the Marshal’s Service attempted
    to serve Powell by certified mail only and not personally, the
    Marshal’s Service improperly performed its duty, and the district
    court abused its discretion when it dismissed Pickens’s suit.
    See Lindsey v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 
    101 F.3d 444
    ,
    447 (5th Cir. 1996); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e); MISS. R. CIV. P.
    4(c)(5); Triple C Transp., Inc. v. Dickens, 
    870 So. 2d 1195
    ,
    1198-99 (Ms. 2004).
    IT IS ORDERED that Pickens’s motion to proceed IFP is
    GRANTED.   The district court’s certification decision is VACATED,
    and the case is REMANDED for the district court to identify
    evidence that the Marshal’s Service attempted to serve Powell
    personally.   If the district court is unable to identify such
    evidence, it should order the United States Marshal’s Service or
    other appropriate person under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e) to serve
    Pickens’s complaint on Powell personally.
    IFP GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-60605

Citation Numbers: 188 F. App'x 258

Judges: Barksdale, Clement, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 7/7/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023