Haggins v. Ramsey, County of, 0:12-cv-03147

Haggins, a pro se prisoner, sued Ramsey County and several corrections officers under §1983 and state assault/battery claims for an alleged 2009 jail assault; he filed IFP and the operative complaint in Jan 2013.
The Clerk mailed U.S. Marshals service forms after IFP was granted; the Marshals returned four defendants unserved and reported serving two others by leaving papers with a person identified as “Robert Allen — Director.”
Defendants answered and repeatedly asserted lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service; discovery and briefing deadlines were set and later extended.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of proper service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; the magistrate construed that motion as a Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for insufficient service.
The court found no good cause under Rule 4(m): Haggins supplied workplace (not residence) addresses, did not diligently follow up after notices and defendants’ filings, and had prior litigation experience suggesting he could have sought correction earlier.
Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to timely and properly serve the defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service was properly effected under Rule 4	Haggins contends he relied on the Marshals and did not receive mailed notices showing unexecuted service	Defendants assert none were properly served per Rule 4 and thus there is no personal jurisdiction	Court held service was improper: Marshals returned many unexecuted and service on two by leaving papers at workplace was not authorized
Whether lack of personal jurisdiction may be decided by summary judgment	Haggins did not expressly contest the procedural vehicle	Defendants moved for summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds	Court held lack of personal jurisdiction is a Rule 12(b)(2)/(5) issue and treated the motion as one to dismiss for insufficient service
Whether Haggins showed good cause under Rule 4(m) to extend the 120-day period	Haggins argued transfers and Marshals’ errors prevented service and notices reaching him	Defendants argued plaintiff failed to provide proper addresses and had notice from filings that service was defective	Court held Haggins failed to show excusable neglect or diligence; no good cause for mandatory extension
Whether the court should exercise discretion to extend time for service	Haggins requested additional time and submitted new Marshal forms later	Defendants opposed; court noted forms still contained deficient addresses	Court exercised discretion not to extend and recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m)

Printed Media Servs., Inc. v. Solna Web, Inc., 11 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1993) (improper service deprives court of personal jurisdiction)
Adams v. Allied Signal Gen. Aviation Avionics, 74 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 1996) (improper service means lack of jurisdiction irrespective of actual notice)
Kurka v. Iowa County, 628 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2010) (good-cause standard under Rule 4(m) requires excusable neglect and case-specific inquiry)
Pope v. Elabo GmbH, 588 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (D. Minn. 2008) (personal-jurisdiction defense is properly raised via motion to dismiss, not summary judgment)
Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1989) (incarcerated pro se plaintiffs relying on Marshals must provide necessary information for service)
Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1990) (when court directs Marshals to serve prisoner plaintiffs, plaintiffs need only provide identifying information for defendants)
Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1987) (prisoner plaintiffs should not be penalized for Marshal failures when fault is not the plaintiff's)
EF Operating Corp. v. American Buildings, 993 F.2d 1046 (3d Cir. 1993) (distinguishing dismissal for lack of jurisdiction from merits rulings like summary judgment)