Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56
2d Cir.2012Background
- Meilleur, proceeding pro se and IFP, filed a §1983 complaint against NYPD Detective Strong and other unknown officers on July 14, 2010.
- Court granted IFP status and issued a 4-service package with Marshal service instructions; 120-day service deadline was November 11, 2010.
- District court warned that failure to serve or obtain extension would result in dismissal unless good cause was shown.
- Meilleur arranged with the United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants, delivering documents on December 2, 2010; service was not completed by the December 30, 2010 deadline.
- Marshals completed service on February 7, 2011, but Meilleur did not notify the court of the arrangement or status prior to dismissal.
- District court dismissed Meilleur’s action without prejudice under Rule 4(m) on January 10, 2011; Meilleur did not appeal that order promptly.
- On May 10, 2011, Meilleur moved to reopen; May 26, 2011 district court denied the motion; Meilleur appealed the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for lack of timely service was an abuse of discretion | Meilleur relied on Marshals to effect service; delays were Marshals’ fault | Court properly dismissed for failure to serve within 120 days without timely extension | No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff showed good cause for late service | Pro se/IFP status entitled to Marshals’ assistance; delays not her fault | Meilleur failed to notify court of Marshals’ efforts or seek timely extension | No good cause shown under Rule 4(m), upholding dismissal |
| Whether denial of Rule 60(b) relief was proper | Relied on Marshals’ delay; excusable neglect | Delay attributed to Marshals but plaintiff failed to explain delay promptly | No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Romandette v. Weetabix Co., 807 F.2d 309 (2d Cir. 1986) (IFP entitled to marshal service; dismissal error if not considered at dismissal)
- Nagy v. Dwyer, 507 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2007) (court may require pro se/IFP plaintiff to request marshal service; discretion remains with district court)
- Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2007) (district court may extend time for service; may consider good cause)
- Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (must give notice and opportunity to show good cause before sua sponte dismissal)
- Goldberg & Connolly v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp, Inc., 565 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 58(a) and finality considerations in appeal timing)