Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06066/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 15 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LEWIS AARON COOK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DAVID WELCH, Judge; J.T. MASSEY, 

Assistant District Attorney; ARLOE 

BOWERMAN, Deputy Sheriff, Lincoln 

County, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6066 

)(D.C. No. CIV-88-708-R) 

) (W.D. of Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MCWILLIAMS, and BARRETT, Circuit 

Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of 

Lewis Aaron Cook's civil rights complaint for failure to comply 

* 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: 89-6066 Document: 01019975708 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 1 
,. 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j). Rule 4(j) requires a plaintiff to 

timely serve defendant with the complaint and summons. 

Cook filed a complaint on April 26, 1988, alleging damages 

because of the defendants' violation of his civil rights. The 

defendants were not served with the complaint within the 120-day 

time limit proscribed by Rule 4(j), and they moved for dismissal. 

Cook responded with a memorandum opposing dismissal. The court, 

on November 17, 1988, denied the motion to dismiss because it 

found "good cause" for Cook's delay of service. The court 

extended the 120-day limit by 30 days and thereby ordered Cook to 

serve the defendants with the complaint within 30 days of the date 

of that order. 

Once again, Cook failed to timely serve the complaint. On 

December 23, 1988, more than 30 days from the date of the court's 

order, the Attorney General again moved for dismissal. After that 

motion was filed, Cook, without leave of the court, obtained a 

praecipe for and issuance of four summons which were returned in 

an executed form on January 13, 1989. The defendants again moved 

for dismissal, and Cook responded. 

The court, finding that Cook's failure to serve the 

defendants within 30 days of its November 17, 1988, Order was 

without good cause, granted the defendants' motion and dismissed 

the action without prejudice. 

Cook maintains that he never received or knew about the 

court's November 17, 1988, order directing him to serve the 

defendants within 30 days and that, therefore, he should be 

allowed to continue the present action. The court found that even 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6066 Document: 01019975708 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 2 
if Cook had not received the order of November 17, 1988, he was 

apparently aware of his failure to comply with Rule 4(j) and of 

the fact that his action could be dismissed because of such noncompliance. Cook knew of his non-compliance, the court reasoned, 

because the defendants' first motion to dismiss (October 14, 1988) 

specifically addressed that fact, and Cook responded to that 

motion by means of a memorandum in opposition to dismissal. 

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 4(j) 

will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion. Putnam v. 

Morris, 833 F.2d 903 (10th Cir. 1987). Having reviewed the 

pleadings and the court's order of dismissal, a copy of which is 

attached hereto, we hold that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that there was no good cause for Cook's 

failure to serve the defendants within 30 days of the court's 

order of November 17, 1989. Because the court's dismissal was 

without prejudice, Cook is free to refile his action. 

We AFFIRM. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6066 Document: 01019975708 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 3 
/ I 

.{ 

Fl lE D --~~~'::'.I~ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE "V.i,'.•,;· FEti J_ 7 198~ ' 'JJ: :. ')o. "-1~· . -~,~-,·. WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

--~~.!~ ' ~,'fl), ·.' .• •· ':'l.t' 

LEWIS AARON ·cooK, 

VS. 

Plaintiff 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DAVID WELCH, Judge; J. T. ) 

MASSEY, Assistant District ) 

Attorney; and ARLOE BOWERMAN, ) 

Deputy Sheriff, Lincoln County, ) 

Defendants 

) 

) 

0 R D E R 

_.,_1101·-IIT 0, 1:11:Nflll 

- U. a. DlaTIUCT COURl 

81 »z:.tA..___ 

0£Purt --

No. CIV-88-708-R 

uocKtlHl 

This civil rights action, brought by plaintiff proceeding ,. 

prose and in forma pauperis, was originally filed on April 26 ~ 

1988, and by order dated April 27, 1988, the Court stayed consideration of plaintiff's complaint pending resolution of the 

pending state criminal action. On October 14, 1988, the Attorney 

General, on behalf of defendants, moved to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to serve summons within 120 days as required by 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j). In an order dated November 17, 1988, the 

Court found good cause for plaintiff's failure to serve within 

120 days ,··/·:~nd grant~·<i plaintiff an additional 30 . days within . ;:-:, .'i.!'<~ - . . 

which ta '.:'; .),.:: summons consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Nothing t .At' :f:-~~ ·~ • . , ,·- further tr~$pir~·d with respect to this file until December 21, 

1988, when plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was filed. On 

December 23, defendants again moved to dismiss for. plaintiff's 

failure to serve consistent with the Court's order of November 

17. On December 30, 1988, without leave of court, plaintiff 

obtained a praecipe for and issuance of four summons, which were 

Appellate Case: 89-6066 Document: 01019975708 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 4 
I 

returne~, ~~ been executed, on January 13, 1989. Defendants 

have agai~ ~~ved · to dismiss, for failure to timely serve, on 

··"t~~-. . "· 

January Hf 'and January 26, 1989, to which plaintiff has now 

responded. 

Plaintiff states in his brief in support of the response to 

the third and fourth motions to dismiss that he has never 

received a copy of any Court order requiring service. Plaintiff 

claims that when he received the second motion to dismiss, 

referring to the additional time allowed to perfect service, he 

served all defendants as soon as possible. However, factual 

statements of fact appearing only in briefs are not part of the 

record. See Local Rule 13 (H). Plaintiff also claims he filed 

for an extension of time to serve, but the Court notes that no 

such extension was sought or granted. 

The Court is empowered by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2) to extend the 

120-day time period, even after it has run, if movant 

demonstrates "good cause" for delay. Putnam v. Morris, 833 F.2d 

903 (10th Cir. 1987). Although the Court found good cause in its 

November 17 order, circumstances now require a contrary result. 

Plaintiff was well aware of his failure to serve defendants, and 

( .· the possi -, ;ity that his lawsuit could therefore be dismissed 

,:.-,. ~'' . 

pursuant .. ~;,, _·;-(· ·~£~ 4 (j) , as he responded in objection to the first 

' . ) t ,.,~~--~;~t;. . . 

motion to dismiss. Whether or not he received the Court's order 

of November 17, he was aware that dismissal had been sought, and 

why. It is plaintiff's responsibility to provide a current and 

accurate mailing address during the pendency of his suit. See 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's failure 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6066 Document: 01019975708 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 5 
r 

,r. I 

to serve .d-.ferldants within 30 days of the order of November 17, . ·~--!·.: ~ .. . . , ,.' . 

1988, is.:1.:Jltho~t"' good cause. The motions to dismiss of all ·?'t:J!-: .. ;t ·~ 

defendants ~are therefore granted. 

In accordance with the foregoing, this action is dismissed, 

without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this I~ day of February, 1989. 

r ·-·-;"' n ~ 

~~ DAVID L.L ~2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

ENTERED IN JUOG~MENT Ddt'KET ON 

FEB 17 1989 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6066 Document: 01019975708 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 6