### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 17, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13818 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 26 -C V -H L -5 F R E D C R O S S , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s A R C H W . M C G A R I T Y , E . B Y R O N S M I T H , D R . S T E P H E N R . P O R T C H , R O B E R T T . T R A M M E L L , D A V I D A . B E L L , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 17, 2005) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: F r e d C r os s , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s m i s s a l of hi s c om pl a i ntf

or fa i l ure t o serve process on the defendant s und erF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 4 ( m ) . W e a f

f irm . W e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e f o rf a ilu r e to s e rv e p r o c e s s . Br o w n v . N i c h o l s , 8 F. 3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 )
. Ru l e 4 ( m) pr ovi de s , “ I f

s e rvi c e of

the s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nti s notm a de upon ade f e nda nt wi th i n 1 2 0 d a y s a f

t e rth e f i l i n g o f th e c o m p l a i n t , th e c o u rt , u p o n m o t i o n o ri t s o wn in itia tiv e a f

te rn o tic e to th e p la in tif f , s h a ll d is m is s th e a c tio n w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . . . . [ I ] f th e p l a i n t i f

f s h o w s g o o d c au s e f

o rth e f a i l u r e , th e c o u rts h a l l e x t e n d th e t i me f o rs e rv ic e f

o ra n ap p r o p r ia te p e r io d .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 ( m ) . C r o s s f ile d h is
co m p l ai n to n Jan u ary 2 5 . O n Ju n e 1 6 , th e p eri o d o f 1 2 0 -d ays t o serv e p ro cess el apse d. O n Jun e 20, the di stri ctcourtordere d C ross t o sho w cause f or hi s f ai l ure t o serv e p ro cess. C ro ss t i m el y resp o n d ed o n Ju n e 2 7 , an d i n h i s resp o n se, C ro ss st at ed hi s e rr on eous bel i ef thatthe courtw ou l d serve process for hi m . T he di stri ct c ourtdi s m i s s e d hi s c om pl a i nton J une 30. A c ourtm a y gr a nta n e xt e ns i on t o s e rve pr oc e s s f ore i the r“ good c aus e ” or a nothe rs uf

f i c i e ntgr ound. H or e nka m p v. V a n W i nkl e & C o. , 402 F . 3d 1129, 1132 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ G oo d cause ” e xi st s “ w hen som e out si de fa ct or such as re l i ance3

on faul ty a dv i ce , ra ther than i nadv ert ence or negl i gence, prevent ed se rvi ce . ” P ri sc o v . F rank , 92 9 F . 2d 60 3, 60 4 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). S uffi ci entgrou nd s other than

“ good c aus e ” a r e w i thi n the di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc ourta s gui de d by the
e xa m pl e s pr ovi de d i n the a dvi s ory c om m i tt e e ’ s not e s t o R ul e 4( m )
. H or e nka m p, 402 F . 3d a t1132; F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( m ) , a dvi s ory c om m i tt e e ’ s not e s , 1993
am en d m en t s. C ro ss d i d n o tp ro v i d e “ g o o d cau se” fo r h i s fai l u re t o serv e p ro cess, a nd R ul e 4( c ) ( 1) pr ovi de s tha tC r os s , notthe c ourt , w a s r e s pons i bl e f ors e rvi c e of p ro ce ss . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n w h en itd ism isse d C ro ss ’s
c o m p la in t. A FFI R M ED .