Stuart Marvin Reis v. Commissioner of Social Security
710 F. App'x 828
11th Cir.2017Background
- Stuart Melvin Reis filed a civil action on October 21, 2015 seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits.
- Under the then-applicable Rule 4(m), service of process had to be completed within 120 days (deadline: February 18, 2016).
- Reis did not timely serve the United States Attorney; he served the SSA Commissioner and the U.S. Attorney General within 120 days but failed to file proof of service with the court.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m); the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint on March 31, 2016.
- Reis moved for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) and requested an extension, citing his lawyer’s oversight and that the statute of limitations would bar refiling; the district court denied relief without explaining whether it considered the statute-of-limitations issue.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and found reversible error because the district court did not indicate whether it considered a permissive extension despite lack of good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) was proper for failure to serve within 120 days | Reis argued his lawyer’s oversight caused failure to serve and asked for an extension because the limitations period would bar refiling | Court below relied on Rule 4(m) dismissal for lack of timely service | Dismissal vacated and remanded because district court did not show it considered permissive extension factors (e.g., statute of limitations) |
| Whether plaintiff showed "good cause" to require a mandatory extension under Rule 4(m) | Reis asserted oversight by counsel amounted to sufficient reason | Government implied no good cause existed | Counsel’s negligence is not "good cause"; plaintiff failed to show good cause |
| Whether district court must consider permissive extension when no good cause is shown | Reis urged consideration of statute-of-limitations bar to refiling to justify extension | District court did not expressly consider such factors | Court must consider other circumstances (including if refiling would be time-barred) before dismissing; remand required for that consideration |
| Standard of review for the district court’s dismissal and denial of post-judgment relief | Reis sought reversal of dismissal and denial of Rule 59(e)/60(b) relief | Government defended district court’s discretionary rulings | Abuse-of-discretion review applies; remand because district court’s orders lacked sufficient explanation for meaningful appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (defines "good cause" for Rule 4(m) and requires consideration of permissive extensions when good cause is absent)
- Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizes district court discretion to extend service time even without good cause)
- Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 1996) (describes abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) review)
- Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090 (11th Cir. 2007) (requires district courts to provide sufficient explanation to permit meaningful appellate review)