Smith v. Fikes

Background

James Tyrone Smith filed a complaint in December 2020 asserting civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jeffrey Fikes and William Barr. Smith represented himself. He did not serve either defendant with the summons and complaint.

In March 2021, the magistrate judge reminded Smith that he was responsible for serving the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). In June 2021, the magistrate judge ordered Smith to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants. Smith requested additional time, explaining that he had been transferred from FCI Sandstone to FCI Milan. The magistrate judge granted additional time but warned that failing to serve the defendants by November 1, 2021, could lead to dismissal.

Smith did not meet that deadline. The magistrate judge then recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Smith objected, stating that he had served the interested parties in good faith. He relied on a letter showing that the Bureau of Prisons had received the complaint by mistake and later notified him of the error.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation independently. It explained that a plaintiff must serve each defendant within the time required by Rule 4. If service is not completed within 90 days, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or set another service deadline unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure.

The court concluded that Smith’s only attempt to serve a defendant went to the wrong address. It found that Smith provided no evidence that he tried to correct the mistake and no reason why he could not serve the defendants during the approximately two months between receiving the Bureau of Prisons’ letter and the extended service deadline. The court also noted that Smith still had not served either defendant.

Disposition

The court overruled Smith’s objection to the Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Smith’s complaint without prejudice. The opinion explains that this allowed Smith to file the case again and reassert the claims, but he would have to serve the defendants according to Rule 4 before the new lawsuit could proceed.