Austin v. Riley
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-09347
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Austin v. Riley, Judge Corley denied Austin’s request for more time to serve Riley and set a March 2, 2022 deadline.
George Jarvis Austin’s request for additional time was denied, and he was ordered to serve Kerri Riley by March 2, 2022.
What happened
George Jarvis Austin sued Kerri Riley and filed a request for more time to serve the summons and complaint. Austin was handling the case without a lawyer and had already paid the filing fee.
The court said service ordinarily must occur within 90 days after filing. Austin cited financial strain, service problems, and other responsibilities, but the court found that he had not shown good cause for an extension and declined to extend the deadline without good cause.
In Austin v. Riley, Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Austin’s motion and ordered him to serve Riley with the summons and complaint by March 2, 2022. The order resolved Docket No. 12.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Riley · No. 3:21-cv-09347
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
George Jarvis Austin filed his complaint on December 2, 2021. The court had directed him to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it. Austin paid the filing fee, and the Clerk issued the summons. Austin then filed a motion for leave or an extension, which the court treated as a motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint on Kerri Riley. The opinion states that Austin was proceeding without a lawyer.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a defendant to be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court may extend that period for an appropriate time if the plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve the defendant on time. Even without good cause, the court may have discretion to grant an extension.
Court’s reasoning
Austin said that his budget for the expense was strained, that he had experienced service issues, and that he was busy with various responsibilities. He requested an extension until after April 12, 2022, possibly until early May. The court found that, because Austin had already paid the filing fee, his motion did not establish good cause. The court also declined to use its discretion to extend the service period without good cause.
Ruling
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Austin’s motion. The court ordered Austin to serve the summons and complaint on Riley by March 2, 2022. The order disposed of Docket No. 12.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.