Robinson v. Dott, 1:10-cv-00260

Robinson filed a discrimination action on June 10, 2010, against Dott and Gutierrez and sought in forma pauperis status and counsel.
She was granted in forma pauperis status but denial of counsel; the 120-day period under Rule 4(m) was tolled pending those determinations.
Extending deadlines, she was given until December 13 to serve the defendants; she never issued process.
Robinson amended the complaint on October 8, adding Paxen as a defendant; service deadline for Paxen depended on the amended filing date.
Magistrate Judge Walker issued show-cause orders for failure to issue service and later recommended dismissal for failure to serve.
The Court ultimately adopted the recommendation in part and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was warranted	Robinson argues for more time and addresses to serve; objections were untimely and moot.	Defendants contend failure to issue service and prosecute justifies dismissal.	Dismissal without prejudice affirmed.
Effect of extensions and tolling on service deadlines	Time extensions should have preserved her ability to serve.	Extensions did not cure failure to serve; deadlines and tolling were properly applied.	Court adopted findings and extended only as appropriate; service still deficient.
Impact of amended complaint adding Paxen on service deadline	Paxen's inclusion delayed applicability of 4(m) deadline.	Rule 4(m) deadlines for Paxen depend on the amended pleading date; timing was unresolved.	To the extent unresolved, the recommendation was modified; Paxen service remained required.
Whether proper process was ever issued for the defendants	Addresses were not readily available; she sought discovery and address information.	No process issued for any defendant; procedural requirements unmet.	Court found failure to issue service; dismissal appropriate.
Whether the Court should grant relief beyond dismissal	Objecting to the recommendation and seeking further relief.	No merit in extending relief; dismissal appropriate.	Case dismissed without prejudice; no further relief granted.

Lowery v. Carrier Corp., 953 F. Supp. 151 (E.D. Tex. 1997) (tolls 4(m) period pending in forma pauperis and counsel decisions)
Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006) (timing of Rule 4(m) deadlines after amendments)
Carmona v. Ross, 376 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (impact of amendments on service deadlines)
McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1990) (service and docketing considerations in pro se cases)
Johnson v. United States, 152 F.R.D. 87 (E.D. La. 1993) (timeliness and effectiveness of service in federal cases)
Gear, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 1323 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (standards for dismissals for failure to prosecute)