Court Opinion

ID: 9894161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:01:18.933792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:49.962172
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10727   Document: 16-1    Date Filed: 10/31/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10727
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DAVID L. HARRIS,
       SHONDA T. HARRIS,
                                                 Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
       KENNY NORRIS,
       Deputy Chief,
        FORT PIERCE CITY MANAGER,
       GAGLIANO,
       Lt.,
       JUAN ALVAREZ, et al.,
       Police/C.S.U.,
                                               Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-10727      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10727

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-14233-AMC
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               David and Shonda Harris, proceeding pro se, sued several de-
       fendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their civil rights. The
       district court dismissed the suit, so the Harrises appealed. But be-
       cause the defendants were not properly served, the district court
       did not have jurisdiction over the Harrises’ complaint. So it cor-
       rectly dismissed the case. Thus, we affirm.
                                      I.

              The Harrises sued several defendants (including, briefly, a
       police dog) in relation to their detention by Fort Pierce police in
       2021. Roughly two and a half months later, the district court found
       no information in the record that the Harrises served the defend-
       ants, so it ordered the Harrises to serve them or show cause why
       the case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service. In
       response, the Harrises filed notices of certified mail delivery. Later,
       the defendants moved to quash service of process under Fed. R.
       Civ. P. 12(b)(5). The district court granted the motion and dis-
       missed the Harrises’ complaint. This appeal followed.
USCA11 Case: 23-10727      Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       23-10727                Opinion of the Court                          3

                                       II.

               When a district court dismisses a complaint for insufficient
       service of process, we review its legal conclusions de novo and its
       factual finding for clear error. Fuqua v. Turner, 996 F.3d 1140, 1154
       (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 828–29
       (11th Cir. 2007)). When the defendant challenges service of pro-
       cess, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing its validity. Aetna
       Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d
       434, 435 (5th Cir. 1981).
                                       III.

               A court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant who has
       not been served. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol.
       Invs., 553 F.3d 1351, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
       omitted) (quoting Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 896 F.2d 1313, 1317
       (11th Cir. 1990)). And a defendant’s actual notice does not “cure
       defectively executed service.” Albra, 490 F.3d at 829 (citation omit-
       ted). Moreover, the flexibility we extend to pro se litigants does not
       excuse them from following procedural rules. Id. (quoting Loren v.
       Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).
               “[T]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and
       complaint served within the time allowed” by “[a]ny person who
       is at least 18 years old and not a party” to the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.
       4(c). Here, service had to be effected by “following [Florida] state
       law for serving a summons,” “delivering a copy of the summons
       and of the complaint” personally to the defendants, “leaving a
USCA11 Case: 23-10727      Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10727

       copy” at their abode with “someone of suitable age and discretion
       who resides there,” or “delivering a copy of each to an agent au-
       thorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.”
       Id. at 4(e). If the plaintiff’s requests, the court can order someone
       to serve the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Id. at 4(c).
               The Harrises point to nothing in the record suggesting they
       delivered copies of the summonses and of the complaint to the de-
       fendants personally, to any person at their abodes, or to any au-
       thorized agent. Instead, their own filings suggest that they effected
       service by certified mail. As a general matter, that’s not enough un-
       der federal law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Nor is it enough under Flor-
       ida law: a plaintiff may serve a defendant by certified mail, but only
       if the defendant waives personal service. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(i);
       Griffith v. Slade, 95 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (“Flor-
       ida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i) provides that defendants may
       accept service of process by mail and waive formal service.”). The
       defendants did not waive personal service here.
              And nothing in the record suggests that the Harrises re-
       quested the district court to order service for them. The Harrises
       argue for the first time in their reply brief that the district court
       improperly refused to issue summonses because the Harrises had
       not paid the filing fee. But this argument is refuted by the record.
       The Harrises paid the filing fee, and the district court issued sum-
       monses. But even though summonses were issued, the Harrises
       never requested service by U.S. Marshal, instead attempting to
       serve the defendants by certified mail.
USCA11 Case: 23-10727      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       23-10727               Opinion of the Court                          5

               Because the Harrises did not properly serve the defendants,
       the district court had no jurisdiction over their complaint. So it was
       right to dismiss their complaint. And because it had no jurisdiction,
       all the other issues in this appeal are moot. See County of Los Angeles
       v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979).
                                      IV.

              For the foregoing reasons, the district is AFFIRMED.