Summary
The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the self-represented plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice for failure to properly serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The recommendation follows multiple extensions of time and concludes that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause for the service failure.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because plaintiffs failed to properly serve defendants within the required period despite multiple extensions.
- Whether plaintiffs' self-represented status established good cause for their failure to complete service.
Holdings
- The complaint should be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to properly serve the defendants despite multiple extensions of time.
- Self-represented status alone does not establish good cause for failure to properly serve defendants.
Key quotations
“Plaintiff[s] shall complete service of process on all defendants named in the complaint within 90 days from the date of this order.” (at 1)
“However, pro se status is not sufficient to show good cause for failure to serve.” (at 2)
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” (at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiffs Cheryl Lynn Douglas and Andrew Grant Haymore proceeded without counsel and filed a complaint against The Ezralow Company LLC and other defendants. Although the court issued summonses and warned that service had to be completed within the Rule 4 period, plaintiffs did not properly serve the defendants. After quashing service, the court granted a 21-day extension and additional extensions, but the record still did not show proper service or good cause for the failure.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed the complaint on January 29, 2024, and were issued summonses for service on June 7, 2024. The court granted multiple extensions after finding that service had not been properly completed and had previously quashed service. Because the record still did not show proper service and plaintiffs had not demonstrated good cause, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice and closure of the case, subject to objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).