Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-05146/USCOURTS-ca10-16-05146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Tulsa
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
CPL Francetic
Appellee
Chuck Jordan
Appellee
Janice Martin
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

JANICE MARTIN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF TULSA; CHUCK 

JORDAN; CPL FRANCETIC; JOHN 

DOE, 

 Defendant-Appellees. 

No. 16-5146 

(D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00366-JED-PJC) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

When Ms. Martin sued, the federal rules of civil procedure required 

her to serve the defendants within 120 days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

 

* Oral argument would not be helpful in this appeal. As a result, we 

are deciding the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 1, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-5146 Document: 01019729109 Date Filed: 12/01/2016 Page: 1 
2 

4(m) (2015).1

 The plaintiff didn’t. So, over thirteen months after Ms. 

Martin sued, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice for 

failure to timely serve the defendants. 

The plaintiff appeals, arguing that her underlying claim is valid. It 

may be, but the district court could not grant relief in the absence of 

service of process. 

When 120 days elapsed from the filing of the complaint, the federal 

rules required the district court to either order dismissal without prejudice 

or order service within a specific-time-period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) 

(2015). The district court complied, ordering service by July 22, 2016, and 

warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice. 

Ms. Martin failed to take any action by July 22, 2016. So, over one month 

after the court’s deadline expired, the district court did what it had warned, 

dismissing the action without prejudice. This dismissal reflected a proper 

exercise of authority under the federal rules of civil procedure. Thus, we 

affirm. 

Entered for the Court 

 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

 

1

 Roughly five months after Ms. Martin filed the complaint, the service 

deadline was shortened to 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (eff. Dec. 1, 

2015) 

Appellate Case: 16-5146 Document: 01019729109 Date Filed: 12/01/2016 Page: 2