Jones v. Ramos

Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in dismissing under Rule 4(m) plaintiff’s personal injury action, where record showed that: (1) plaintiff filed instant action two days prior to expiration of limitations period; (2) plaintiff was warned that his lawsuit would be dismissed on March 5, 2019 if plaintiff had not filed proof of service by that date; (3) instead of filing proof of service by March 5, 2019, plaintiff filed motion for change of venue to Northern District of Indiana on that day; (4) after change of venue motion was granted, plaintiff was directed to serve copy of venue order on defendants within five days; (5) plaintiff served venue order, but did not serve summons and/or complaint on defendants at that time; (6) three months later, one defendant filed motion to dismiss case for, among other things, plaintiff’s failure to timely serve summons and complaint; and (7) summons and complaint were served on all defendants between 238 and 244 days after filing of complaint. Dist. Ct. could properly dismiss complaint, where plaintiff missed three opportunities to serve defendant, that included plaintiff’s failure to serve defendants by (1) original 90-day period prescribed under Rule 4(m); (2) March 5, 2019 deadline set by original Dist. Ct.; and (3) three-month period following change of venue. Record also showed that Dist. Ct. methodically considered factors set forth in Cardenas, 646 F.3d 1001 that pertained to instant motion to dismiss and made no factual findings that were clearly erroneous. As such, Dist. Ct.’s dismissal ruling was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Fact that instant dismissal essentially precluded plaintiff from filing any future complaint because limitations period had expired did not require different result.