Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01049/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Carmona
Appellant
City of Brainerd
Appellee
Crow Wing County
Appellee
Jennifer Cummings
Appellee
Harvey Doe
Appellee
Pete Doe
Appellee
David Ten Eyck
Appellee
Tim Friis
Appellee
Mike Hatch
Appellee
David Hermerding
Appellee
Don Inwards
Appellee
Rod McCulley
Appellee
Denny Peterson
Appellee
Marshall Prescott
Appellee
Dick Ross
Appellee
John Sausen
Appellee
Jesse Ventura
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1049

___________

Jesus Carmona, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Dick Ross; John Sausen; David Ten * District of Minnesota.

Eyck; David Hermerding; Jennifer *

Cummings; Tim Friis; Jesse Ventura; *

Mike Hatch; Don Inwards; Marshall * [PUBLISHED]

Prescott; Rod McCulley; Harvey Doe; *

Pete Doe; Crow Wing County; City *

of Brainerd; Denny Peterson, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2004

Filed: July 22, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Louisiana inmate Jesus Carmona appeals the district court’s order dismissing

unserved defendants, dismissing his second amended complaint, and denying his

motion to compel discovery in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, following a remand by

this court to address those issues. We affirm the dismissal of unserved defendants

Appellate Case: 04-1049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2004 Entry ID: 1790970 
-2-

who previously were named in the first amended complaint, but we modify the

dismissal to be without prejudice; we reverse the dismissal of the second amended

complaint as to the newly added defendants, and we remand to allow Carmona time

to serve those defendants.

Because the district court's order on remand dismisses the second amended

complaint, we conclude that it implicitly granted Carmona's request to file the second

amended complaint. The court did not deny Carmona leave to file the second

amended complaint. In addressing the second amended complaint, the district court

incorporated by reference its prior resolution of the claims against Ross, and it

clarified that it was dismissing all unserved defendants for lack of service. We find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing those unserved

defendants who previously were named in the first amended complaint. See Bullock

v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review).

With respect to those defendants, the court gave Carmona an extension to file

completed summons forms and warned him that his failure to do so would result in

dismissal, and yet Carmona did not request additional summons forms until more than

five months after the extended deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (if service of

summons and complaint is not made within 120 days of filing complaint, court, upon

motion or its own initiative and after notice to plaintiff, shall dismiss action without

prejudice as to that defendant, or direct that service be effected within specified time);

Edwards v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (if plaintiff fails

to serve party and does not show good cause for failing to do so, court shall dismiss

action).

We find, however, that the district court erred in dismissing all of the

defendants named in the second amended complaint for lack of service, as Carmona

should have been given an additional 120 days to serve those defendants who were

added by the second amended complaint. See City of Merced v. Fields, 997 F. Supp.

Appellate Case: 04-1049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2004 Entry ID: 1790970 
-3-

1326, 1337-39 (E.D. Cal. 1998); 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

Practice & Procedure § 1137, at 377 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of defendants City of Brainerd, Crow

Wing County, Rod McCulley, Marshall Prescott, Denny Peterson, David Hermerding,

and Jennifer Cummings, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (court shall dismiss action without prejudice). We reverse as to

the claims against defendants John Sausen, Judge David Ten Eyck, Tim Friis, Jesse

Ventura, Mike Hatch, Harvey Doe, Don Inwards, and Pete Doe, and remand for the

district court to allow Carmona time to serve those defendants.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1049 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2004 Entry ID: 1790970