Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03204/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

Uaitecf Scau, c:owrot Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS Tenth Cfr:uir 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DEC 2 '11990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DOROTHY J. JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JAMES A. BAKER, III, Secretary) 

of the Department of Treasury,) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

No. 90-3204 

(D. C. No. 88-2496) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMEN'l'* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34{a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Ms. Johnson appeals the decision of the district court 

dismissing her complaint for failure to effect service of process 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 1 
• 

within 120 days of filing the complaint, as required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(j). We affirm. 

Ms .. Johnson filed her complaint pro se. The complaint 

alleges employment discrimination based upon age and physical 

handicap. Details of the subsequent proceedings need not be set 

forth. The complaint was filed on May 5, 1988. On October 6, 

1988, counsel was appointed to represent Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson 

applied for and received an extension of time to effect proper 

service. The district court subsequently dismissed the action. 

Through her counsel, Ms. Johnson filed a motion for 

reconsideration. The motion was granted and Plaintiff received 

reinstatement of her claim~ Once again, the district court 

allowed Ms. Johnson additional time to effect proper service. 

Again, no service was made or apparently even attempted. On May 

29, 1990, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure 

to effect proper service of process in accordance with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(j). 

Ms. Johnson now appeals prose. Her appeal is a plaintive 

cry for help. She requests counsel and candidly admits she does 

not know the law and that she not able to assess it. 

The district court entered a three-page Memorandum and Order 

detailing its reasons for dismissal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 2 
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(j) will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion by 

the district court. Putnam v. Morris, 833 F.2d 903, 904 (10th 

Cir. 1987). We cannot hold the district court abused its 

discretion when it dismissed Ms. Johnson's complaint for failure 

to comply with the 120-day rule set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) 

where more than two years had elapsed since the initial filing. 

Ms. Johnson was provided numerous opportunities to accomplish a 

simple act. Neither Ms. Johnson nor her counsel offered any 

reasons excusing this failure. While it may seem harsh to deny 

Ms. Johnson her day in court, it is likewise most unfair to 

deprive defendant of an opportunity to defend for two years. 

We commend District Court Judge O'Connor for his patient and 

careful handling of this matter. It is obvious he did everything 

possible to attempt to secure for Ms. Johnson her day in court. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for 

substantially the same reasons as set forth in its Memorandum and 

Order dated May 29, 1990, a copy of which is attached hereto. 

We also commend Ms. Johnson's counsel for candidly advising 

Ms. Johnson in a letter to her dated June 28, 1990, that she "may 

want to consult an attorney regarding ••• potential actions 

against myself." 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 3 
The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 4 
DOROTHY J. 

v. 

NICHOLAS F. 

of the 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) No. 88-2496-0 

) 

BRADY, Secretary ) 

Treasury, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

MAY 2 91990 

~ DeLOACH, Clerk 

By hoy> Oep,:;~y 

This matter is before the court on the renewed motion of the 

defendant Nicholas F. Brady, Secretary of the Treasury, to dismiss 

for plaintiff's failure to effect service of process within 120 

days of filing the complaint, as required under Rule 4(j) of the 

Federal Rules· of Civil· Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, 

defendant's motion will be granted. 

On September 18, 1989, the court filed a memorandum and order 

granting defendant's first motion to dismiss this action because 

of the plaintiff's failure to effect service upon the defendant 

within the time permitted by Rule 4(j). Plaintiff filed a motion 

for reconsideration on October 3, 1989. The court granted that 

motion on October 6, 1989, reinstated plaintiff's case, and gave 

the plaintiff an additional thirty days to effect proper service 

on the defendant. 

On January 9, 1990, defendant filed a renewed motion to 

dismiss, asserting that plaintiff had still not effected service 

on the Secretary of the Treasury and that the extension of time 

-44 

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 5 
·.I granted in the court's order of October 6, 1989, had expired. The 

·· record further shows that both the plaintiff and her attorney 

attended the pretrial conference on March 13, 1990, at which time 

the ctefendant again asserted he had not been timely served as 

required under Rule 4 ( j) • It was also noted at the pretrial 

conference that the defendant's renewed motion to dismiss was 

pending. 

Since the plaintiff has filed no response to the defendant's 

renewed motion _to dismiss, it will be treated as an uncontested 

motion under D. Kan. Rule 206(g). 

Affirming the trial court's dismissal of a plaintiff's 

complaint for failure to timely serve the defendant, the Tenth 

Circuit summarized the relevant considerations for evaluating a 

motion for extension of time in Putnam v. Morris, 833 F.2d 903 

(10th Cir. 1987): 

Although the trial court has the power to extend the 

120-day time period after it has run under Fed.R.Civ.P. 

6(b) (2), it will do so only if the movant demonstrates 

"good cause" for the delay t'1hich the court deems to be 

excusable neglect. Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore. 

~, 776 F.2d 1304, 1305 (5th Cir. 1985). These two 

standards are interrelated. The Fifth Circuit has said: 

Without attempting a rigid or all-encompassing 

definition of 'good cause, ' it would apμear to 

require at least as much as would be required to 

show excusable neglect, as to which simple 

inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of 

the rules usually does not suffice, and some showing 

of 'good faith on the part of the party seeking the 

enlargement and some reasonable basis for 

noncompliance within the time specified' is normally 

required. 10 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and 

Procedure: Civil § 1165 at 622 (emphasis added). 

The district court is clearly not compelled to 

accept a lesser •excusable neglect' showing. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 6 
- . . 

Id. at 1306. 

~Putnam, 833 F.2d at 905. 

The court finds that dismissal is warranted for two reasons. 

First, plaintiff has not filed a motion for another extension of 

time in which to effect service of process. Therefore, the court 

has no procedural basis upon which to disregard as "excusable 

neglect" plaintiff's failure to timely serve defendant. Second, 

plaintiff simply offers no reason for why she did not timely serve 

defendant. She has not even responded to defendant I s renewed 

motion to dismiss and, under D. Kan. Rule 206(g), "an uncontested 

motion . • will ordinarily will be granted without further 

notice." 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the renewed motion to dismiss of 

defendant Nicholas F. Brady, Se~of the Treasure, is granted • . ~ 

Dated this ::R day of , 1990, at Kansas City, 

Kansas. 

LE. O'CONNOR, Chief Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 7 
' 

\ AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in I Civil Case e 

.,., 

Jtlnitth' ~tatts J§istrict Olourt ---------------- DISTRICT OF _K=A.......,.N ..... S.... A_..S ___________ _ 

DOROTHY J. JOHNSON 

V. 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

JAMES A. BAKER, III, Secretary 

of the Department of Treasury CASE NUMBER: 88-2496-0 

0 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury_ The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

~ Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a 

decision has been rendered. · 

ITISORDEREDANDADJUDGED that the renewed motion to dismiss of defe·ndant 

Nicholas F. Brady, Secretary of Treasury, is GRANTED. 

ENTERED ON THE DOCKET: 5-29-90 

W~[~ID) 

MAY 2 91990 

RALPH L DelOACH, Clerk 

ey c:KBLA~ Deputy 

May 29, J99Q RALPH L. DeLOACH 

Date Clerk 

,/--~---

Appellate Case: 90-3204 Document: 010110097373 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 8