Evgeny Ryzhov v. State of Florida
20-14312
| 11th Cir. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- On July 29, 2020, pro se plaintiff Evgeny Ryzhov sued the State of Florida and six state officials/agencies alleging claims arising from his daughters’ inability to get Medicaid dental care, a DMV records request, and denial of a COVID-19 Bridge Loan, invoking federal and state statutes.
- The district court ordered Ryzhov to effect service and file proof by October 27, 2020 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), warning dismissal if he failed to do so.
- Ryzhov did not file proof of service by the deadline; the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on October 28, 2020 for failure to serve under Rule 4(m).
- Ryzhov moved to reinstate under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), claiming he had mailed complaints and waiver forms, received confirmation from an agency representative, and been told by the Assistant Attorney General that defendants would not waive service; he also asserted inexperience with the rules.
- The district court denied the motion on November 3, 2020; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding service was improper (waiver procedure inapplicable to states), Ryzhov showed no good cause or other basis for extension, and the Rule 59(e)/60(b) motion did not justify relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 4(m) was an abuse of discretion | Ryzhov says he timely effected service by sending waivers and received confirmations | Service was never properly effected; waiver-of-service is inapplicable to states; no proof of service | Affirmed — dismissal not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Ryzhov showed "good cause" to extend service time under Rule 4(m) | Pro se status and procedural misunderstanding justify extension | Pro se status/misunderstanding are not "good cause"; no outside factor prevented service | No good cause; extension not required |
| Whether denial of reinstatement under Rules 59(e) / 60(b) was an abuse | Ryzhov sought to amend proof of service and claimed mistake/excusable neglect | No newly discovered evidence, manifest error, or compelling justification to vacate | Denial affirmed |
| Whether clerk’s failure to sign/issue summons excuses nonservice (raised on appeal) | Clerk didn’t sign/issue summons so Ryzhov couldn’t serve | Issue was raised first on appeal and is not preserved | Not considered on appeal; argument forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010) (review of dismissal under Rule 4(m) is for abuse of discretion)
- Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (good-cause standard for Rule 4(m) extensions and district-court obligations)
- Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903 (11th Cir. 2020) (discussing Rule 4(m) and district court’s duty to consider extensions before dismissal)
- Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for relief under Rule 59(e))
- Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130 (11th Cir. 1986) (movant must show compelling justification to vacate under Rule 60(b))
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwestern Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues raised first on appeal are ordinarily not considered)
- Rice v. Ford Motor Co., 88 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denials)
- Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20 (5th Cir. 1996) (district court not required to discuss permissive Rule 4(m) extensions when issue not raised)