Corey Coles v. Ralph Northcutt and Spouse

574 F. App'x 268

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2014
• Docket: 14-6006
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corey Coles, a Virginia state prisoner, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) action for failing to comply with the district court’s order that he provide sufficient copies of his complaint for service on the numerous defendants. Coles also challenges the denial of his motions to appoint counsel. We vacate in part, dismiss in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), a district court may dismiss a complaint if a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, and such dismissals are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir.1989) (setting forth factors courts entertaining dismissal should consider); see also Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir.1998). Although generally, a district court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action when a party fails to comply with a reasonable court order after being warned of the consequences of neglecting the court’s direction, see id. at 95-96, we conclude that the district court acted too quickly. See id. at 95 (noting that “propriety of a dismissal ... depends on the particular circumstances of the case”).

First, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, like Coles, is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare and effect service of process on his behalf. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4; Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 123 n. 6 (2d Cir.2013). This includes providing copies of the complaint. See Holly v. Anderson, 467 F.3d 1120, 1122 (8th Cir.2006). Additionally, Coles requested that the district court serve the Defendants, and he still had considerable time to perfect service when the district court entered its dismissal order. See Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 608-09 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, the dismissal cut substantially short Coles’ 120-day period to serve process, either on his own or with the district court’s and U.S. Marshals Service’s assistance. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); see Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir.2012).

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court failed to afford Coles sufficient assistance and time to serve his complaint. Therefore, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We dismiss as moot the portion of Coles’ appeal challenging the denial of his motions to appoint counsel, and we deny Coles’ motions in this court requesting the appointment of counsel and transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.