FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCT 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 11469 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -012 23 -C V -C C -1 D A V I D G . T U RN E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ 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 N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 18, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a v id T u rn e r , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is2

c om pl a i nt , w i th pr e

j udi c e , f orf a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th a c our tor de r . F orthe r e a s ons th a t f o llo w , w e v a c a te a n d r e m a n d . I . Ba c k g r o und O n M a y , 9 , 2 0 0 5 , Tu rn e rf i l e d a p r o s e c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s tth e I RS chal l engi ng i t s f

ai l ure t o g ra nthi m a c ol l ec t i on -due-proces s hea ri ng before i m pos i ng al e vy a ga i ns thi s pr ope r ty . T urne rs e rve d ac opy of the c om pl a i nton the U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney G ener al by re gi st er ed m ai l , bu tfa i l ed t o i ncl ud e a s um m ons . I n a n a ns w e rf i l e d on J ul y 6, 2005, the G ove rnm e ntr a i s e d the af fi rm at i ve defense of “ i nsuffi ci encyof proces s” for f ai l ure t o serve a s um m on s a s r e qui r e d by F e de r a l R ul e s of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 4( c ) ( 1) a nd 4( i ) ( 1) . O n A ugus t31, 2005, m or e tha n 120 da y s a f t e rf i l i ng hi s c om pl a i nt , T urne rs e ntc opi e s of uns i gne d, unda t e d s um m ons e s t o the di s tr i c tc our t , the A tt orne y G e ne r a l , the U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia , a n d a n I R S e m p lo y e e . H e a l so subm i tt ed copi es of po st al re turn rec ei pt s a s proof thatal l i nt er es t ed part i es h a d r e c e iv e d h is c o m p la in t. O n N ov em ber 4, 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtfoun d that , i n v i ol at i on of L ocal R ul e 16. 2, ne i the rT urne rnorthe G ove rnm e ntha d f i l e d pr e l i m i na ry r e por t s a nd d is c o v e ry p la n s w ith in 3 0 d a y s a f te rth e G o v e rn m e n t f

ile d its a n s w e r . C ons e que nt l y di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d the pa r t i e s t o f i l e the r e qui r e d s t a t e m e nt s on or3

before N ov em ber 18, 20 05 , or show cause w hy the ca se shou l d n otbe di sm i ss ed f orf a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th the l oc a l rul e . T he G ove rnm e ntc om pl i e d w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s order , bu tT urner di d n ot . O n N ov em ber 23, 20 05 , the di stri ctcourt di s m i s s e d the c a s e w i th pr e j udi c e unde rF e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 41( b) ci t i ng T urner’ s f

ai l ure t o com pl y w i th the court ’ s order . A l l egi ng thathe never r e c e i ve d the s how - c a us e or de r , T urne rm ove d t o a l t e rora m e nd the j udgm e ntof di sm i ss al and asked for an addi t i on al 20 days i n w hi ch t o com pl y. T he di stri ct c o u r t d e n ie d T u rn e r ’s m o tio n , f in d in g d is m is s a l w a s s till w a rr a n te d o n th e a lte rn a te gr ound tha tT urne rf

a i l e d t o e f

f e c ts e rvi c e of

pr oc e s s pur s ua ntt o R ul e s 4( c ) ( 1) a nd 4 ( i) ( 1 ) . T u rn e rn o w ap p e a ls . I I . D i s c u s s i on F ed eral R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ced u re 4 1 (b ) au th o ri zes a d i stri ctco u rtt o d i sm i ss act i o n s w i th p re

j ud i ce i f the pl ai nt i ff

fa i l s t o com pl y w i th any courtorder, l ocal rul e, or F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re . F ed. R . C i v. P . 41 (b). W e r evi ew such orders for abu se of di sc re t i on . K i l go v. R i cks, 98 3 F . 2d 18 9, 19 2 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ) ( c i t i ng G of

or th v. O w e ns , 766 F . 2d 1533, 1535 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ) . “ D i s c r e t i on m e a ns the di s tr i c tc our tha s a r a nge of c hoi c e , a nd tha ti t s de c i s i on w i l l notbe di s turbe d a s l ong a s i ts t a y s w i thi n tha tr a nge a nd i s noti nf l ue nc e d by a ny m i s t a ke of l aw . ” B etty K . A genci es , L t d. v. M /V M on ada, 43 2 F . 3d 13 33 , 13 37 (11th C i r.4

20 05 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). B ec ause di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce i s a“ dras t i c” re m edy, a di stri ctcourt“ m ay onl y i m pl e m e nti t , a s a l a s tr e s or t , w he n: ( 1) a pa r ty e nga ge s i n a c l e a rpa tt e rn of del ayor w i l l ful cont em pt(c on tum ac i ou s c on du ct ); and (2) the di stri ctcourt sp eci fi cal l y fi n d s th atl esser san ct i o n s w o u l d n o tsu ffi ce. ” W o rl d T h ru stF i l m s, I nc . v. I nt ’ l F a m i l y E ntm ’ t , 41 F . 3d 1454, 1456 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ; s e e a l s o, K i l go, 9 8 3 F .2 d a t 1 9 2 ( c itin g a lin e o f E le v e n th C ir c u it c a s e s a r tic u la tin g th is s ta n d a r d ) .

“ [ F ] i ndi ngs s a t i s f

y i ng both pr ongs of ou r s t andard are es se nt i al before di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce i s app ropri at e. ” I d. at13 39 (c i t i ng M i ng o v . S ug arC ane G row er s C o-op . of F l ori da, 86 4 F . 2d 10 1, 10 2-03 (11th C i r. 19 89 )) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). M er e d e la y o rs im p le n e g lig e n c e w ill n o t s u f f ic e ; d is m is s a l w ith p r e

ju d ic e “m u s t, a t a m i ni m um , be ba s e d on e vi de nc e of w i l l f ul de l a y . ” K i l go, 983 F . 2d a t192- 93 ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . A n d , “[ a ]lth o u g h w e o c c a s io n a lly ha ve f ound i m pl i c i ti n a n or de rthe c onc l us i on tha tl e s s e rs a nc t i ons w oul d not suff i ce , w e have never s ug gest ed thatthe di stri ctcourtneed no tm ake thatfi nd i ng . ” W o r ld T h ru s t F ilm s , 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 4 5 6 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . “T h is c o u r t h a s o n ly i nf e rr e d s uc h af

i ndi ng ‘ w he r e l e s s e rs a nc t i ons w oul d ha ve gr e a t l y pr e j udi c e d’ defe nd ant s. ’ ” I d. at14 56 (quo t i ng K i l go , 98 3 F . 2d at19 3 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed)) . In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed T urner’ s c om pl ai ntw i th p re j ud i ce5

o n th e g r o u n d s th a t h e f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith lo c a l ru le s a n d w ith a c o u r t o r d e r . T he di s tr i c tc our ts ubs e que nt l y de ni e d T urne r ’ s m ot i on t o a l t e rtha tj udgm e nt be c a us e i tf

ound di s m i s s a l w a s a l s o pr ope ron the a l t e rna t e gr ound of i ns uf f i c i e nt s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s . W e c o n c lu d e th a t n e ith e rg r o u n d ju s tif ie s d is m is s a l w ith prej ud i ce . A . Im p ro p er S erv i ce o f P ro cess T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d T u rn e r ’s m o tio n to a lte rth e ju d g m e n t o f d is m is s a l w i th p re j ud i ce b e c a u s e it f

o u n d d is m is s a l w a s s till ju s tif ie d b y T u rn e r ’s f

a ilu r e to prop er l y s erve the G ov ernm entas re qu i re d b y F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re 4( c ) ( 1) a nd 4( i ) ( 1) . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o a l t e ror a m e nd the j udgm e ntf

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. D r a go v. J e nne , 453 F . 3d 1301, 1305 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( c itin g L o c k a r d v . E q u if a x , I n c ., 1 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ) .

“ [ T ] he pl a i nt i f

f i s r e s pons i bl e f

ors e rvi c e of

a s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nt w i thi n the t i m e a l l ow ed un der s ub di vi si on (m ). ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(c) (1). U nd er R u le 4 ( m ) , [ 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 a d e f e n d a n t w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s a f te rth e f ilin g o f th e c o m p la in t, th e c o u r t, u p o n m o tio n o ro n its o w n in itia tiv e a f te rn o tic e to th e p la in tif f , s h a ll d ism iss the a c t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce a s to th a t d e f e n d a n t ordi r e c t

that6

s e r v i c e b e e

f f e c te d w i th i n a s

p e c i f i e d t i me ; prov i ded thati f the pl ai nt i ff sh o w s g o o d

ca u se f orthe f a i l ur e , the c our ts ha l l e xt e nd the t i m e f or s e rvi c e f ora n appr opr i a t e pe r i od. F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 ( m ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . H er e, al tho ug h T urner properl y s erved the com pl ai nton the A tt orney G ener al by ce rt i fi ed m ai l , he di d n oti ncl ud e asum m on s, there by fa i l i ng t o eff ec t s e rvi c e pur s ua ntt o R ul e 4. T urne ra r gue s tha thi s de f e c t i ve s e rvi c e di d notw a rr a nt di sm i ss al w i th p re

j ud i ce because: (1) he s ub st ant i al l y c om pl i ed w i th the se rvi ce r e qui r e m e nt s ; ( 2) hi s pr o s e s t a tus s houl d ha ve e nt i t l e d hi m t o ac e r t a i n de gr e e of l eni encyre gardi ng se rvi ce of proces s; (3) the G ov ernm entsuff er ed no prej ud i ce f r om the de f

e c t s i n s e rvi c e ; a nd ( 4) he ne ve rknow i ngl y orw i l l f ul l y i gnor e d a ny of the di stri ctcourt ’ s order s. W e f i nd thatun der the ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, T urner’ s f

ai l ure t o eff

ec tprop erse rvi ce di d n otj ust i fythe “ drac on i an re m edy of a d is m is s a l w ith p r e

ju d ic e .” B e tty K . A g e n c ie s , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 9 . Itbear s r epea t i ng that“ di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce i s adras t i c s anct i on that m a y b e im p o s e d o n ly u p o n f in d in g a c le a rp a tte rn o f d e la y o rw illf

u l c o n te m p t and th a t le s s e rs a n c tio n s w o u ld n o t s u f f ic e .” I d . a t 1 3 4 0 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . “W e r ig id ly r e q u ir e th e d is tr ic t c o u r ts to m a k e th e s e f in d in g s p r e c is e ly b e c a u s e th e s a n c tio n o f

d is m is s a l w ith p r e

ju d ic e is s o u n s p a r in g , a n d w e s tr iv e to7

a f f o r d alitig a n t h is o rh e rd a y in c o u r t, if p o s s ib le .” I d . ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o fi nd thatT urner’ s def ec t i ve se rvi ce w as w i l l ful or contum ac i ou s. M oreover, the courtfa i l ed t o fi nd thatl es se r s a n c t i o n s w e r e i n a d e q u a t e t o c o rr e c tth e d e f e c t s i n s e rv i c e . I n d e e d , Ru l e 4 ( m) e xpl i c i t l y pr e s c r i be s a l e s s e rs a nc t i on f orf a i l ur e t o c om pl e t e s e rvi c e by r e qui r i ng the di s tr i c tc our tt o “ di s m i s s the a c t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce ” or“ di r e c ttha ts e rvi c e be e f f e c t e d. ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( m ) . A nd a l though “ w e oc c a s i ona l l y ha ve f ound im p lic it in a n o r d e rth e c o n c lu s io n th a t le s s e rs a n c tio n s w o u ld n o t s u f f ic e , . . .

“ [ t ] hi s c our tha s onl y i nf e rr e d s uc h af

i ndi ng ‘ w he r e l e s s e rs a nc t i ons w oul d ha ve gr e a t l y pr e

j udi c e d’ de f

e nda nt s . ’ ” W or l d T hrus tF i l m s , 41 F . 3d a t1456 ( quot i ng K i l go , 98 3 F . 2d at19 3 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed)) . Y etno thi ng i n the re cord i nd i ca t es that a le s s e rs a n c tio n w o u ld h a v e “g r e a tly p r e ju d ic e d ” th e G o v e rn m e n t. A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt ab u se d it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g T u rn er ’s m ot i on t o al t erthe j ud gm entof di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce . B . F a ilu r e to C o m p ly w ith a C o u r t O r d e ro rL o c a l R u le E v e n if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y f in d in g th a t d is m is s a l w ith prej ud i ce w as prop erbecause s ervi ce w as defe ct i ve, the G ov ernm entcont ends that the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of T urner’ s m ot i on t o al t erthe j ud gm entw as prop er because di sm i ss al w as w arra nt ed for T urner’ s f ai l ure t o com pl y w i th l ocal rul es8

a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s h o w - c a u s e o r d e r . L ocal R ul e 16. 1 requi re s l i t i gant s t o fi l e di sc ov ery pl ans a nd prel i m i nary re po rt s w i th the di stri ctcourtw i thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft erthe defendanthas f i l ed an answ er . N . D . G a. R . 16 . 1. F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 41 (b) a l l ow s adi stri ct co u rtt o d i sm i ss act i o n s w i th p re j ud i ce i f the pl ai nt i ff

fa i l s t o com pl y w i th, i nt er a lia , a n y c o u r t o r d e ro rlo c a l ru le . F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 ( b ) ; K ilg o , 9 8 3 F .2 d a t 1 9 2 . A n d L o c a l R u le 4 1 .3 s ta te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y d is m is s a c iv il a c tio n w ith pr e j udi c e i f a pl a i nt i f

f: ( 1) “ w i l l f

ul l y f a i l s t o m a ke ” orr e f

us e s t o c a us e a c a s e t o be m a de r e a dy f

orpl a c e m e nton the tr i a l c a l e nda r ; or( 2) a f t e rnot i c e , “ f

a i l [ s ] or re fuse [s ] t o o bey al aw ful order of the courti n the ca se . ” N . D . G a. R . 41 . 3A (1)- ( 2 ) ; s e e a l s o N . D . G a . R. 4 1 . 3 B. H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to m a k e a n y f

in d in g s th a t T u rn e r ’s f

a ilu r e to com pl y w i th the court ’ s s ho w -c ause order “ c le a r ly de m ons tr a t e s ” a pa tt e rn of de l a y orw i l l f

ul c ont e m pt . W hi l e the G ove rnm e ntpoi nt s t o T urne r ’ s c onduc ti n the un derl yi ng t ax ac t i on , i toffe rs no thi ng t o sho w a patt ern o f w i l l f ul cont em ptbefore the di stri ctcourt , and w e c anno ti nfersuch fr om the re cord. N or di d the di stri ct c our tm a ke a ny f

i ndi ng tha tl e s s e rs a nc t i ons w oul d nots uf f i c e . A ga i n, w e ha ve “o n ly in f e rr e d s u c h a f

in d in g ‘w h e r e le s s e rs a n c tio n s w o u ld h a v e g r e a tly prej ud i ce d’ defe nd ant s. ’ ” W orl d T hrustF i l m s, 41 F . 3d at14 56 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed).9

A nd be c a us e w e c a nnote nvi s i on how th e G o v e rn m e n t w o u ldh a v e b e e n g r e a tly pr e j udi c e d by a l e s s e rs a nc t i on, w e r e f us e t o i nf

e rs uc h af

i ndi ng. H e nc e , the go vernm ent ’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s s ho w -c ause order im p lic itly d e m o n s tr a te d its w illin g n e s s to c o n s id e rle s s e rs a n c tio n s is in ap p o s ite . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our ti gnor e d the una m bi guous s t a nda r d gove rni ng di s m i s s a l s w i th pr e

j udi c e , the r e by abus i ng i t s di s c r e t i on.

I I I . C on c l u s i on F orthe r e a s ons above , w e V A C A T E a nd R E M A N D f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.