2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-9-2011

Stephen Mathies v. Seth Silver

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2859

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Stephen Mathies v. Seth Silver" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 239.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/239
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2859

___________

STEPHEN MATHIES,

Appellant

v.

SETH SILVER; MARIA MARTINEZ

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-02882)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 8, 2011

Before: AMBRO, FISHER AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 9, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Stephen Mathies, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in 

Phoenix, Arizona, appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint 

filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s order 

dismissing Mathies’ complaint against Dr. Seth Silver.
2

I

In 2004, Mathies filed in the District Court a Bivens action alleging that Dr. 

Silver, an orthopedic surgeon who repaired Mathies’ injured Achilles tendon in 2001, 

failed to provide adequate follow-up care, and that Maria Martinez, a nurse practitioner at 

the prison in which Mathies was previously incarcerated, denied him immediate access to 

a doctor when his wound became infected. 

In September 2005, the District Court forwarded blank summonses to Mathies so 

that he could serve the defendants. Thereafter, the District Court granted Mathies two 

extensions of time to effectuate service. In the District Court’s second order granting him 

an extension, the District Court explained the service requirements of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4, specifically noting that: (1) Mathies could not serve Martinez or 

Silver by certified mail; (2) Mathies was also required to serve the United States pursuant 

to Rule 4(i); and (3) all summonses had to be signed and sealed by the Clerk of Court.

In May 2006, Mathies wrote to the District Court claiming to have completed 

service on the defendants. Mathies enclosed certified mail receipts addressed to the 

Attorney General and to the United States Attorney’s Office in Camden, New Jersey, as 

well as an unsigned summons. In June 2006, the time that the District Court had allotted 

for Mathies to complete service expired, and Martinez filed a motion to dismiss. The 

District Court granted that motion, reasoning that Mathies failed to properly serve 

Martinez or the United States, and that Mathies had failed to demonstrate good cause to 

warrant an additional opportunity to complete service. Mathies timely appealed that 

order.
3

Shortly thereafter, the District Court sua sponte dismissed Mathies’ complaint 

against Silver without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to District of New 

Jersey Local Rule 41.1(a).

1

We affirmed the District Court’s order granting Martinez’s motion to dismiss on 

the ground that Mathies had failed to serve Martinez with a complete summons. See

Mathies v. Silver, 266 F. App’x 138, 140 (3d Cir. 2008). However, we did not address 

the District Court’s decision as it pertained to Mathies’ failure to properly serve the 

United States. Further, we vacated the District Court’s order dismissing Mathies’ claims

against Silver because the District Court did not address Mathies’ statement in opposition 

to dismissal or evaluate the factors a court should consider in determining whether to 

dismiss for failure to prosecute, as set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 

747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).

 Mathies appealed that order, as well, and his two appeals 

were consolidated. 

On remand, Mathies requested pro bono counsel and, in January 2009, the District 

Court appointed William Tambussi to represent him. Tambussi filed a formal appearance 

two months later. In January 2010, Mathies wrote the District Court, complaining that he 

had not heard from Tambussi for an entire year. The District Court forwarded the letter 

to Tambussi, who did not respond. In June 2010, Mathies again wrote the District Court 

that he had not heard from counsel. The District Court noticed the case for dismissal and 

 1

 We noted on appeal that “[t]he District Court’s dismissal was essentially with 

prejudice because the statute of limitations appears to have run on Mathies’ claims.” 

Mathies v. Silver, 266 F. App’x 138, 139 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008).
4

once again forwarded Mathies’ letter to Tambussi, who responded, explaining that he had 

been unable to contact Mathies in prison and that he had contacted the prison to arrange a 

meeting. On July 19, 2010, Tambussi met with Mathies at the prison and, on the 

following day -- more than eighteen months after his appointment -- Tambussi filed in the 

District Court a request for the issuance of a summons for Dr. Silver. The summons was 

issued and Dr. Silver was served on July 20, 2010.

Counsel for Dr. Silver entered an appearance and filed a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (5), and (6), as well as Rule 4(m). 

The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that Mathies failed to 

properly serve the United States, as required by Rule 4(i), and that Mathies failed to 

demonstrate good cause for his failure to effectuate service. Mathies timely appealed that 

decision.

II

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A plaintiff to a civil action in 

federal court must complete service of his complaint within 120 days of filing or within a 

period prescribed by the District Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If the plaintiff fails to 

complete service within the specified time, Rule 4(m) requires the District Court to 

determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause for the failure. See Boley v. 

Kaymark, 123 F.3d 756, 758 (3d Cir. 1997). If so, the District Court must grant an 

extension to effect service; if not, the District Court may either dismiss the complaint or 

grant a discretionary extension. See id. We review both the District Court’s assessment 

of good cause and its decision not to grant an extension for abuse of discretion. See id. at 
5

758-59.

Rule 4(i)(3) requires that a plaintiff suing a federal employee in his individual 

capacity also serve the United States, which is accomplished by delivering a copy of the 

summons

2

“We have equated good cause with the concept of excusable neglect . . . , which 

and the complaint by certified mail to: (1) the civil-process clerk at the United 

States Attorney’s Office for the district in which the action was brought, and (2) the 

Attorney General of the United States in Washington, DC. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1). 

Because Bivens only authorizes suits against federal officials in their individual 

capacities, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 473 (1994), Mathies was required to 

complete service pursuant to Rule (4)(i)(3); see also Kurzberg v. Ashcroft, 619 F.3d 176, 

178 (2d Cir. 2010) (Bivens plaintiffs must serve process on both the individual 

defendants and the United States). Failure to effect service on the United States is 

grounds for a motion to dismiss in a Bivens action. See Kurzberg, 619 F.3d at 178-79. 

Although the record shows that Mathies attempted in 2006 to send his complaint to the 

Attorney General and United States Attorney, he failed to show that he also sent copies of 

signed, sealed summonses. And the record reflects no attempt by Mathies’ appointed 

counsel to effect service on the United States. Thus, it is clear that even after six years, 

multiple extensions, and the appointment of counsel to assist him, Mathies did not 

properly serve the United States, and his complaint against Silver was subject to 

dismissal unless he demonstrated good cause for his failure to do so.

 2

 As noted above, to satisfy Rule 4, a summons must, inter alia, be signed by the clerk 

and bear the court’s seal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1).
6

requires a demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement 

and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.” 

MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). The factors a court should consider in evaluating 

whether good cause exists are: (1) the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts to effect 

service; (2) prejudice to the defendant because of untimely service; (3) whether the 

plaintiff has moved for an enlargement of time; and (4) whether the statute of limitations 

will bar the plaintiff’s claims if the action is dismissed. See id. at 1097-98. In 

concluding that Mathies had not shown good cause to excuse his failure to complete 

service, the District Court noted the various extensions and accommodations Mathies was 

afforded, both before and after Tambussi was appointed to represent him, and explained 

that, despite the assistance he received, Mathies failed to serve Dr. Silver with a 

complaint for more than six years and never properly served the United States. Further, 

we note that Tambussi’s brief opposing the motion to dismiss made much of Mathies’ 

good faith efforts and pro se status -- which the District Court gave due consideration to -

- but failed to acknowledge Tambussi’s own failure to comply with the requirements of 

Rule 4(i). We presume that Tambussi was able to review the complete record of 

proceedings, which clearly demonstrated both that Mathies was required to serve the 

United States and that he had not adequately done so. That Tambussi neglected to 

explain his own failure to complete service on the United States on Mathies’ behalf lends 

further weight to the District Court’s conclusion that Mathies had not demonstrated good 

cause, and we therefore perceive no abuse of discretion in that determination.
7

Notwithstanding Mathies’ failure to demonstrate good cause for failing to 

complete service, the District Court proceeded to determine whether, as a discretionary 

matter, dismissal would be inappropriate. See Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 

F.3d 1298, 1305 (3d Cir. 1995). In making that determination, a court is to consider 

several factors, including whether the statute of limitations would foreclose the plaintiff 

from re-filing, whether the defendant attempted to evade service, and any other relevant 

equitable considerations. See id. at 1305-07. The District Court noted that the continued 

failure to effect service, which was attributable to both Mathies and his attorney, had 

resulted in an effective six-year tolling of the statute of limitations. The District Court 

recognized that dismissal would result in Mathies’ inability to re-file because of the twoyear statute of limitations,

3

 3

 The statute of limitations for Bivens claims is taken from the state’s personal injury 

statute. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 190 (3d Cir. 1993). In New Jersey, the 

statute of limitations for personal injury causes of action is two years. See N.J. Stat. 

Ann. § 2A:14-2.

but concluded that that factor did not justify continuing the 

action. In the District Court’s view, it would be unfair to impose upon Dr. Silver further 

delays so that Mathies could complete service, as well as the burden of defending a claim 

that Mathies did not bring to Silver’s attention until -- accepting arguendo Mathies’

position that his claim accrued in April 2003 -- seven years after the statute of limitations 

began to run. Given that “[s]tatutes of limitations serve compelling policy interests,” 

Nat’l Iranian Oil Co. v. Mapco Int’l, Inc., 983 F.2d 485, 492 (3d Cir. 1992), particularly 

“to protect defendants from the unfair surprise of stale claims,” Kreiger v. United States, 

539 F.2d 317, 322 (3d Cir. 1976), we do not think that the District Court abused its 
8

discretion in concluding that fairness to the defendant in this case outweighed Mathies’ 

interest in continuing the litigation.

Accordingly, we will affirm.