Roger Shuler, et al v. Liberty Duke, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Carol Shuler and Roger Shuler. Decision: Reversed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 16-15853 Date Filed: 08/23/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-15853 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-00501-RDP ROGER SHULER, CAROL SHULER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LIBERTY DUKE, CHRISTINA CROW, JINKS CROW & DICKSON, law firm, ROB RILEY, JAY MURRILL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (August 23, 2017) Case: 16-15853 Date Filed: 08/23/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pro see appellants, Roger and Carol Shuler (the Shulers), appeal the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on a failure to prosecute because the Shulers did not serve the complaint on the defendants within the proper timeframe. On appeal, the Shulers argue that the district court should have effectuated service for them because they received “partial” in forma pauperis (IFP) status. Alternatively, they argue that the court should have granted them an extension of time to serve the defendants. We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to effect service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for an abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). “We affirm unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Without addressing the merits of the appeal, we reverse the district court’s dismissal because it should have effectuated service for the Shulers, who had IFP status. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the district court must order that service be made by either a United States marshal, a deputy marshal, or by any person specially appointed by the court when the litigant is proceeding under IFP status. REVERSED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?