Mathies v. Silver , 266 F. App'x 138 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-28-2008
Mathies v. Silver
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1770
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Mathies v. Silver" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1697.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1697
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 07-1770 & 07-2403
___________
STEPHEN MATHIES,
Appellant
v.
SETH SILVER;
MARIA MARTINEZ
_________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-02882)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
__________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 25, 2008
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 28, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Stephen Mathies, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute in
Fairton, New Jersey, appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders dismissing his
complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the
complaint against defendant Maria Martinez and will vacate the District Court’s order
dismissing the complaint against defendant Dr. Seth Silver.
The parties are familiar with the facts and therefore we will only briefly summarize
them here. In June 2004, Mathies filed a complaint alleging that, while incarcerated, he
underwent surgery to repair a ruptured achilles tendon. Mathies contends that Silver, the
orthopedic surgeon who performed the surgery, failed to provide adequate follow-up care
and that Martinez, a nurse practitioner at the prison, denied him immediate access to a
physician when his wound became infected. In addition to his complaint, Mathies
submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but after the District Court
ordered that he either submit certain institutional account statements or remit the $150
filing fee, Mathies paid the filing fee. In September 2006, the Clerk of the Court
forwarded blank summonses to Mathies. The District Court subsequently granted
Mathies two extensions of time to effectuate service. In the order granting a second
extension of time, the District Court informed Mathies of the service requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, specifically noting that (1) Mathies could not effect
service upon officers or employees of the United States by certified mail; and (2) the
Clerk of the Court must sign the summonses.
In May 2006, Mathies sent a letter to the District Court claiming to have effected
service on the defendants and enclosing certified mail receipts addressed to the Attorney
General of the United States and the United States Attorney’s Office in Camden, New
2
Jersey, as well as an unsigned summons addressed to Silver. On June 30, 2006, Martinez
moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m), 12(b)(2),
and 12(b)(5) because “the Court is without jurisdiction over her person, process has never
been issued by the Court, defendant Martinez has never been served with process . . .and
the time in which to effect service has expired.” The District Court granted Martinez’s
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4(m), reasoning that Mathies had served Martinez and
the United States Attorney with an “incomplete summons,” and had failed to show good
cause for his failure to effect service. Mathies filed a timely notice of appeal (C.A. No.
07-1770).
Subsequently, pursuant to District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule 41.1(a)
(dismissal of inactive cases), a Notice of Call for Dismissal of the complaint against
Silver was entered on April 13, 2007, because the case had been pending for more than
120 days without any proceeding taking place thereon. On April 25, 2007, Mathies filed
an opposition to the Notice of Call. The District Court then dismissed the case against
Silver “without prejudice” on April 27, 2007, noting that “no objection” had been entered
“at a call of the calendar.”1 Mathies then filed a second timely notice of appeal (C.A. No.
07-2403). The appeals in C.A. Nos. 07-1770 and 07-2403 have now been consolidated.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ordinarily, we
exercise plenary review over issues of service under Rule 4 and review decisions about
1
The District Court’s dismissal was essentially with prejudice because the statute of
limitations appears to have run on Mathies’ claims.
3
whether good cause exists to extend the 120-day service period for abuse of discretion.
Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, 99 F.3d 565, 569 n. 4 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
We exercise plenary review over the question of whether a summons conferred
jurisdiction over a defendant. See id. This Court reviews dismissals for failure to
prosecute under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. See Adams v. Trustees of New Jersey
Brewery Employees’ Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 870 (3d Cir. 1994). We can
affirm the District Court on any basis supported in the record. See Fairview Twp. v.
EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 524 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985).
We will affirm the order of the District Court entered on March 5, 2007, granting
Martinez’s motion to dismiss. The failure of a plaintiff to obtain valid process from the
court to provide it with personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is fatal to the
plaintiff’s case. Ayres, 99 F.3d at 569. A summons which is not signed and sealed by the
Clerk of the Court does not confer personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. Upon
proper motion, such a suit should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2). Id. Under such
circumstances, “it becomes unnecessary for the district courts to consider such questions
as whether service was properly made, or whether an extension to the 120-day service
period should be granted under Rule 4(m).” Id. Here, Mathies failed to obtain a signed
and sealed summons for Martinez, who moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2). Thus,
Mathies’ suit against Martinez was properly dismissed. Id.We will vacate the District Court’s order dismissing the suit against Silver for non-
prosecution under District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule 41.1(a) (the local rule
4
counterpart to Fed. R.Civ. P. 41(b)). To determine whether the District Court abused its
discretion in dismissing a case under Rule 41(b), we evaluate its balancing of the
following factors: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to
the other party; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the
attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal,
which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim
or defense. Adams, 29 F.3d at 873 & n.5 (citing Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,
747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984)). Here, the District Court did not weigh any of these
factors before dismissing the suit against Silver. Indeed, it is not clear whether the
District Court even considered the response Mathies filed in opposition to the Notice of
Call for Dismissal given that the District Court stated in its order that no objection had
been entered. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order entered on April 30,
2007.
In sum, we will affirm the District Court’s order entered on March 5, 2007, but
will vacate the District Court’s order entered on April 30, 2007, and remand for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.2
2
In his appeal, Mathies contends that the District Court failed to respond to a request
for appointment of counsel, but we have found no such request in the record.
5