Williams v. Werlinger
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13645
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff, an inmate at FCI Oxford, sued former warden Robert Werlinger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations and was granted in forma pauperis status.
- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the district court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Werlinger.
- The Marshals reported Werlinger had retired and left no forwarding address and that internet database searches failed to locate him.
- A magistrate judge instructed the Marshals to try again (contact BOP and public record searches) but added that they need not use nonpublic law-enforcement software or act as private investigators.
- After limited further effort by the Marshals, a magistrate directed the plaintiff to try to locate Werlinger himself; the plaintiff could not and the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit held the Marshals’ efforts were insufficient given the court’s mandatory duty under Rule 4(c)(3) to effect service for in forma pauperis plaintiffs and reversed the dismissal, tolling the statute of limitations while the Marshals redouble their efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court satisfied its duty under Rule 4(c)(3) by directing the Marshals to serve Werlinger and accepting their limited search reports | Williams argued the court must order the Marshals to serve him and the Marshals must make reasonable, adequate efforts to locate Werlinger | Implicit government position: Marshals’ public-record/internet searches sufficed; they need not use special law-enforcement tools or act as private investigators | Court held Marshals’ efforts were inadequate; they must make reasonable, more exhaustive efforts to locate Werlinger given Rule 4(c)(3)’s mandatory command |
| Whether the Magistrate’s statement that Marshals need not use law-enforcement-only resources was correct | Williams: Marshals should use available BOP records and other realistic investigative steps | Magistrate suggested Marshals are not required to use nonpublic software or act as private investigators | Court rejected a blanket rule; Marshals must take reasonably proportionate steps (e.g., contact BOP, personnel records, staff, successor warden) to locate retired warden |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice was proper after Marshals’ limited search and plaintiff’s inability to locate defendant | Williams: Dismissal premature because court-ordered service was not meaningfully pursued | Implicit defense: Plaintiff could search on his own; dismissal appropriate after efforts failed | Court reversed dismissal as premature and remanded for further service efforts by Marshals |
| Whether limitations period should be tolled while Marshals continue efforts | Williams: Tolling required due to court-ordered service efforts | Defense: Not argued in detail | Court ordered tolling of the statute of limitations while Marshals renew efforts (citing Sellers) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1990) (Marshals’ duty to make reasonable efforts to locate and serve a defendant under Rule 4(c)(3), and tolling statute of limitations while service attempts continue)