Court Opinion

ID: 9948799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 22:01:13.949352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.168532
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11733   Document: 169-1   Date Filed: 03/07/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-11733
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        JULIA M. ROBINSON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
        et al.,

                                                         Defendants,

        CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP.
        SERVICE COMPANY,
        TERMINIX GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.,
        THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
USCA11 Case: 23-11733      Document: 169-1      Date Filed: 03/07/2024     Page: 2 of 5

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11733

        JANE DOE'S,
        JOHN DOE'S,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                             ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Georgia
                      D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-03080-MHC
                            ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Appellant Julia Robinson, proceeding pro se, appeals the dis-
        trict court’s dismissal without prejudice of her complaint for failure
        to timely serve the defendants: the United States, Choice Hotels
        International Services Corp. (“Choice Hotels”), and Terminix
        Global Holdings (“Terminix”). She argues that the district court
        abused its discretion in dismissing her complaint because she suc-
        cessfully made service by sending requests for waivers of service to
        the defendants within 90 days of filing her amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 23-11733         Document: 169-1           Date Filed: 03/07/2024       Page: 3 of 5

        23-11733                  Opinion of the Court                                3

        Having reviewed the record and read the parties’ briefs, we affirm
        the district court’s order of dismissal. 1
                                                   I.
                “We review for abuse of discretion a court’s dismissal with-
        out prejudice of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a
        defendant under Rule 4(m).” Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty.
        Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). “An abuse of discre-
        tion occurs when a district court commits a clear error of judg-
        ment, fails to follow the proper legal standard or process for mak-
        ing a determination, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
        Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir.
        2017). We cannot say that a district court abuses its discretion
        when it dismisses a case without prejudice because parties can re-
        file their complaints. See, e.g., Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv.,
        720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983).
               Furthermore, although we liberally construe complaints
        filed by pro se plaintiffs, “this leniency does not give a court license
        to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise
        deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air
        Jamaica, Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal

        1 It is not clear if Robinson is also appealing from the district court’s orders

        denying her motion for a temporary restraining order and her motion for a
        preliminary injunction. However, she makes no mention of this in her brief,
        and this failure constitutes a waiver of any alleged error by the district court
        on the issue. In re Egidi, 571 F.3d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir. 2009).
USCA11 Case: 23-11733      Document: 169-1         Date Filed: 03/07/2024   Page: 4 of 5

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11733

        quotation marks omitted). A pro se complaint still must comply
        with procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
        Cir. 2007).
                                             II.

                If a plaintiff does not serve process “within 90 days after the
        complaint is filed,” a district court must dismiss the action without
        prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). As an alternative to serving pro-
        cess, a plaintiff may request that defendants waive service. Id. R.
        4(d). However, a “defendant is not required to waive formal ser-
        vice.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281. The United States may
        not waive service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), (i). If a defendant does
        not do so, full service of process must be made within the allotted
        time. Id. If service is not made within 90 days, a plaintiff may avoid
        dismissal if she can show “good cause for the failure.” Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 4(m). “Good cause exists only when some outside factor, such
        as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence,
        prevented service.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281 (quotation
        omitted and alteration adopted).
               Even “when a district court finds that a plaintiff fails to show
        good cause for failing to effect timely service pursuant to Rule
        4(m), the district court must still consider whether any other cir-
        cumstances warrant an extension of time based on the facts of the
        case.” Id. at 1282. “Only after considering whether any such fac-
        tors exist may the district court exercise its discretion and either
        dismiss the case without prejudice or direct that service be effected
        within a specified time.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11733       Document: 169-1         Date Filed: 03/07/2024   Page: 5 of 5

        23-11733                Opinion of the Court                          5

                                             III.
                The record demonstrates that the district court correctly de-
        termined that Robinson’s attempts to serve the defendants were
        well beyond the 90-day limit and her requests for waiver did not
        toll that time. In her response to Choice’s motion to dismiss, Rob-
        inson admitted that she sent the request for waiver of service after
        the expiration of the 90-day period. The record also supports the
        district court’s determination that none of the reasons cited by
        Robinson constitute good cause. The district court issued a show
        cause order for Robinson to provide reasons why it should not dis-
        miss her complaint for failure to serve the defendants. In her re-
        sponse, Robinson asserted that her service requests were sabotaged
        by the U.S. Postal Service, that she had not read Federal Rule of
        Civil Procedure 4 in its entirety, and that she thought she could
        wait for a response from the defendants to her requests for waiver
        before she paid for full service of process. Robinson fails to demon-
        strate that the district court abused its discretion in finding that she
        did not show good cause to excuse her failure to timely serve the
        defendants. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly con-
        sidered her proffered reasons for failure to timely serve the defend-
        ants and found them lacking.
              Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
        firm the district court’s order dismissing Robinson’s complaint
        without prejudice.
               AFFIRMED.