Court Opinion

ID: 9404598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 16:01:20.191157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.746885
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12959   Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 06/23/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12959
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      RICKY GIDDENS,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      BROOKS COUNTY GEORGIA, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

      THOMAS FRYE,
      in his oﬃcal capacity as Deputy
      at the Brooks County Sheriﬀ's Oﬃce,
USCA11 Case: 22-12959        Document: 7-1        Date Filed: 06/23/2023         Page: 2 of 7

      2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-12959

                                                             Defendant-Appellee.

                              ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 7:19-cv-00140-LAG
                           ____________________

      Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Ricky Giddens, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district
      court’s 4 August 2022 order dismissing Giddens’s pro se civil action
       under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that order, the district court determined
       that no permissive extension was warranted to allow Giddens ad-
       ditional time to complete service of process. No reversible error
       has been shown; we aﬃrm.

      1 We read liberally briefs filed by pro se litigants. See Timson v. Sampson, 518
      F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 22-12959        Document: 7-1        Date Filed: 06/23/2023        Page: 3 of 7

      22-12959                  Opinion of the Court                               3

             This appeal is the second time this case has come before us;
      we summarize only those facts pertinent to this appeal.2 Brieﬂy
      stated, Giddens ﬁled this civil action asserting claims for violations
      of the Fourth Amendment and Georgia law arising from an 18
      March 2019 traﬃc stop. On 20 April 2021, the district court dis-
      missed without prejudice -- for failure to eﬀect timely service of
      process -- Giddens’s claims against Oﬃcer Frye.

             Giddens appealed that decision. In that earlier appeal, we
      determined that the district court acted within its discretion in ﬁnd-
      ing that Giddens had demonstrated no “good cause” under Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 4(m) for failing to serve Oﬃcer Frye. See Giddens v. Brooks
      Cty., No. 21-11755, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7299, at *16-17 (11th Cir.
      March 21, 2022) (unpublished). We concluded, however, that the
      district court erred in failing to show that it considered whether
      other circumstances existed -- including the running of the applica-
      ble statutes of limitation -- that might warrant a permissive exten-
      sion of time to complete service of process. Accordingly, we

      2 The underlying facts are set out more fully in our earlier opinion in Giddens
      v. Brooks Cty., No. 21-11755, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7299 (11th Cir. March 21,
      2022) (unpublished).
USCA11 Case: 22-12959      Document: 7-1        Date Filed: 06/23/2023   Page: 4 of 7

      4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12959

      vacated the district court’s 20 April 2021 order of dismissal and re-
      manded to the district court to consider expressly whether a per-
      missive extension would be warranted under the circumstances in-
      volved in this case. See id. at *17-18.

             On remand, the district court issued the 4 August 2022 order
      of dismissal that is now before us in this appeal. In the 4 August
      order, the district court acknowledged that the applicable statute of
      limitations expired in March 2021 and that -- absent a permissive
      extension -- Giddens would be barred from reﬁling his claims. The
      district court concluded, however, that no permissive extension
      was warranted under the circumstances.

             The district court explained that its 29 October 2020 order
      (issued ﬁve months before the statute of limitations expired) ad-
      vised Giddens that the United States Marshals Service was unable
      to serve Oﬃcer Frye at the address provided by Giddens. The dis-
      trict court gave Giddens a 45-day extension of time to provide a
      valid address where Oﬃcer Frye could be served and warned ex-
      pressly that failure to provide a valid address could result in dismis-
      sal of the case. Nineteen days later, Giddens returned the USM 285
      form listing the same address for Oﬃcer Frye that Giddens had
USCA11 Case: 22-12959         Document: 7-1          Date Filed: 06/23/2023          Page: 5 of 7

      22-12959                    Opinion of the Court                                  5

      been told was no longer current. The district court observed that
      Giddens’s response indicated that he had made no “discernable ef-
      fort to discover a proper address.” Because Gidden had failed to
      provide a valid address for Oﬃcer Frye despite the district court’s
      clear instructions and extension of time to do so, the district court
      determined that no permissive extension was warranted.

              We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte
      dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to eﬀect service. See
      Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir.
      2007). We also review under an abuse-of-discretion standard the
      district court’s decision about whether to grant an extension of
      time under Rule 4(m). See id. Although we construe liberally pro
      se pleadings, pro se litigants must still conform to procedural rules.
      See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

              When -- as in this case 3 -- “a plaintiﬀ fails to show good cause
      for failing to eﬀect timely service pursuant to Rule 4(m), the district

      3 In an earlier appeal, we affirmed the district court’s determination that no
      good cause existed under Rule 4(m) to excuse Giddens’s failure to effect ser-
      vice of process. We are bound by our earlier ruling on that issue; we will not
      consider the arguments Giddens now seeks to raise about good cause. See
      Lebron v. Sec’y of Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 772 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.
      2014) (“Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, the ‘findings of fact and
USCA11 Case: 22-12959        Document: 7-1        Date Filed: 06/23/2023         Page: 6 of 7

      6                         Opinion of the Court                       22-12959

      court must still consider whether any other circumstances warrant
      an extension of time based on the facts of the case.” See Lepone-
       Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282. A district court must consider, for exam-
       ple, whether the running of the statute of limitations would bar
       the plaintiﬀ from reﬁling his claims. See id. As long as the district
       court takes into consideration the applicable statute of limitations,
       that the statute of limitations has expired “does not require that the
       district court extend time for service of process under Rule 4(m).”
       Id.

              Given the circumstances in this case, the district court acted
       within its discretion in ﬁnding that a permissive extension of time
       was not warranted. The district court considered the pertinent fac-
       tors -- including that the statute of limitations would now bar Gid-
       dens from reﬁling his claims -- in deciding whether a permissive
       extension of time was warranted. The record shows that Giddens
       failed to comply with the district court’s clear instructions that, to
       avoid dismissal, Giddens needed to supply a valid address for Of-
       ﬁcer Frye. Instead, Giddens completed a second USM 285 form

      conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent
      proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal.’”).
USCA11 Case: 22-12959     Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 06/23/2023    Page: 7 of 7

      22-12959              Opinion of the Court                        7

      using an address he knew was invalid. Nor did Giddens demon-
      strate that he exercised diligence in searching for a valid address.
      Giddens did not make use of the full 45-day extension of time
      granted by the district court or otherwise explain the steps he took
      to locate a proper address. On this record, we see no abuse of dis-
      cretion.

            AFFIRMED.