Court Opinion

ID: 9956185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 14:00:56.399865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:42.906475
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12824   Document: 39-1    Date Filed: 04/01/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-12824
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       TIFFANY ROBIN ROBERTS,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SCOTT ANDERSON,
       CHARLES ELLIOTT,
       CHRIS PRIEST,
       BILLY C. BURNEY,
       DAVID TODD ROBERTS,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12824         Document: 39-1         Date Filed: 04/01/2024         Page: 2 of 6

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       23-12824

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Alabama
                       D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00748-LCB
                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Tiffany Robin Roberts, proceeding pro se, appeals the dis-
       trict court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The dis-
       trict court granted one defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to
       state a claim and sua sponte dismissed the remaining claims against
       the other defendants for failure to perfect service under Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). After careful review of the parties’
       arguments, we affirm.1
                                              I
              We construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally; however,
       a pro se litigant is required to conform to procedural rules. Albra v.
       Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Rule 4(c)(1) provides
       that “[a] summons must be served with a copy of the complaint,”

       1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal with-

       out prejudice of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a defendant
       under Rule 4(m). Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th
       Cir. 2009). We review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de
       novo, “accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them
       in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335
       (11th Cir. 2003).
USCA11 Case: 23-12824     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024    Page: 3 of 6

       23-12824               Opinion of the Court                        3

       and “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and com-
       plaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 4(c)(1). Rule 4(m), in turn, provides:
             If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
             complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its
             own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the ac-
             tion without prejudice against that defendant or or-
             der that service be made within a specified time. But
             if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the
             court must extend the time for service for an appro-
             priate period.
       “Good cause exists only when some outside factor, such as reliance
       on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented
       service.” Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277,
       1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Absent a showing
       of good cause, “the district court must still consider whether any
       other circumstances warrant an extension of time based on the
       facts of the case.” Id. at 1282. Circumstances warranting an exten-
       sion of time include when the statute of limitations would prevent
       refiling or when the defendant evades service. Bilal v. Geo Care,
       LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 919 (11th Cir. 2020). “Only after considering
       whether any such factors 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.” Lepone-Dempsey,
       476 F.3d at 1282. The running of the statute of limitations must be
       considered but does not require that a district court extend the time
       for service of process under Rule 4(m). Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-12824      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12824

               “Where a dismissal without prejudice has the effect of pre-
       cluding a plaintiff from refiling [her] claim due to the running of
       the statute of limitations, the dismissal is tantamount to a dismissal
       with prejudice.” Mickles v. Country Club Inc., 887 F.3d 1270, 1280
       (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). A dismissal with prej-
       udice is an extreme sanction that may be properly imposed only
       when: “(1) a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful con-
       tempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifi-
       cally finds that lesser sanctions will not suffice.” Betty K Agencies,
       Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2005) (quo-
       tation marks omitted). Moreover, dismissal with prejudice is con-
       sidered more appropriate in a case where a party, as distinct from
       counsel, is culpable. Id. at 1338.
               The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is measured by
       limitations periods for personal-injury torts in the state where the
       action is brought. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). In Ala-
       bama, the governing statute of limitations is two years. McNair v.
       Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir. 2008).
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
       missing the claims against the defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m)
       because Roberts failed, despite the court’s multiple warnings and
       extensions to perfect service by serving the defendants with sum-
       monses even more than a year after the filing of the initial com-
       plaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), (m). Additionally, in reaching its
       decision, the district court properly considered circumstances
       which could have warranted a further extension of time, such as
USCA11 Case: 23-12824     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024    Page: 5 of 6

       23-12824               Opinion of the Court                        5

       the fact that the statute of limitations had run on Roberts’s claims.
       Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282. While Roberts may have be-
       lieved that issuing a subpoena to each defendant satisfied her obli-
       gations, a pro se litigant is required to conform to procedural rules
       such as Rule 4, and Roberts failed to do so by failing to serve the
       defendants with summonses or providing proof of service despite
       the district court’s repeated warnings and extensions. Albra, 490
       F.3d at 829; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), (l)(1).
                                        II
              Turning to the district court’s dismissal of Roberts’s claims
       against defendant Billy Burney under Rule 12(b)(6), we may “affirm
       the judgment of the district court on any ground supported by the
       record, regardless of whether that ground was relied upon or even
       considered by the district court.” Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694
       F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012).
              Further, we will not reverse where an alleged error is harm-
       less. See Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d
       1305, 1322–23 (11th Cir. 2019). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 61, a
       harmless error is one that does not affect a party’s substantial
       rights, and thus, is not a basis for vacating or modifying that judg-
       ment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. Accordingly, the appellant bears the bur-
       den to show an error was not harmless. In re Club Assocs., 951, F.2d
       1223, 1234 n. 13 (11th Cir. 1992).
             Even assuming arguendo that the district court erred in dis-
       missing Roberts’s claims against Burney under Rule 12(b)(6), as
       Roberts contends, its error was harmless as the dismissal of the
USCA11 Case: 23-12824     Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 04/01/2024    Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                23-12824

       claims against Burney would have been appropriate under Rule
       4(m). And, as such, a dismissal under Rule 4(m) would have been
       tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice as the statute of limita-
       tions on Roberts’s claims had run. See Mickles, 887 F.3d at 1280;
       STME, LLC, 938 F.3d at 1322–23; Kernel Records Oy, 694 F.3d at 1309.
             AFFIRMED.