Austin v. Riley

Background

George Jarvis Austin filed the complaint on December 2, 2021, paid the required filing fee on January 1, 2022, and received an issued summons on January 3, 2022. The opinion states that Austin was proceeding without a lawyer.

Austin previously filed a motion that the court treated as a request to extend the time for serving the summons and complaint on Kerri Riley. The court denied that request because Austin had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failing to serve Riley on time.

Second request for more time

Austin filed a second motion to extend the service deadline. He requested an extension until after April 12, 2022, and possibly until mid-June. He explained that recent developments were requiring attention in the short term and were creating a need for more time, resources, and service-related fees.

The court concluded that this explanation was too vague to establish good cause. It noted that Austin had not described the specific circumstances or reasons supporting an extension, particularly because the service deadline had not yet passed. The court also noted that Rule 4(m) requires an extension when a plaintiff shows good cause and allows the court to grant an extension in its discretion even without good cause.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Austin’s second motion. The court ordered him to serve the summons and complaint on Riley on or before March 2, 2022. The order disposed of Docket No. 17.