Kimberly Walker v. United States Postal Service
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Eric L. Clay and Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0524n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Post
Master General, Patrick Donahoe,
May 28, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BEFORE: SILER, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Kimberly Walker appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for
relief from the order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice.
In May 2011, Walker, an employee of the United States Postal Service, filed a complaint
against the Postmaster General in his official capacity, alleging claims of workplace harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation. Walker sought monetary relief. In January 2012, the district court
ordered Walker to show cause for her failure to effect proper service of process in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). In response, Walker moved for a default judgment, asserting
that she had properly served the defendant. In February 2012, the district court dismissed the
complaint without prejudice, concluding that, although Walker had served the defendant, she had
failed to either serve the United States in accordance with Rule 4(i)(1) or demonstrate good cause
Walker v. U.S. Postal Serv.
to excuse her failure to do so. Walker moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4, 15, 59(e),
60(b), and 61 for relief from the order dismissing her complaint and for an extension of time to effect
proper service. The district court denied the motion.
On appeal, Walker argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing her
complaint and denying her an extension of time to serve the United States because she had served
the defendant and it would not be prejudiced by the extension. Walker’s appeal from the denial of
her Rule 59(e) motion is treated as an appeal from the underlying order dismissing her complaint.
See Bonner v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 621 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2010). We review the dismissal of
Walker’s complaint for an abuse of discretion. See Habib v. Gen. Motors Corp., 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th
Where, as here, a plaintiff is suing a United States officer or employee in his or her official
capacity, the plaintiff must serve both the United States and the officer or employee. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(i)(2). To effect service on the United States, a plaintiff must serve both the United States
Attorney for the district where the action is brought and the Attorney General. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(i)(1). If a plaintiff has not completed service within 120 days of filing the complaint, the district
court must dismiss the action or order that service be made within a specified time, unless the
plaintiff demonstrates good cause for failing to effect service, in which case the district court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Walker’s complaint without
prejudice and denying her request for an extension of time to complete service. Walker failed to
effect service on both the Attorney General and the United States Attorney as required by Rule 4(i),
Walker v. U.S. Postal Serv.
despite the fact that her complaint was pending in the district court for over nine months and a
summons was issued for the United States Attorney in October 2011. Further, Walker gave no valid
reason to explain her failure to complete service, and she did not request an extension of time to
effect service until after her complaint was dismissed. Under the circumstances, the district court
could reasonably conclude that Walker had been given a sufficient opportunity to complete service,
that she had not established good cause to excuse her failure to do so, and that an extension of time
was not warranted. See Hill v. Rhodes, Inc., 39 F. App’x 246, 247 (6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
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?