[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-10278 SEP 02, 2011
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:09-cv-00384-WTH-KRS
DOUGLAS E. NALLS,
Sui Juris,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COLEMAN LOW FEDERAL INSTITUTION,
Unknown Correctional Officer, Unknown
Medical Officers, Warden and Administrative
Personnel, BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 2, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas E. Nalls, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
without prejudice of his complaint alleging various constitutional violations
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), as well as its earlier orders denying his requests for recusal,
transferring his case to another district, and denying his motions for summary
judgment and default judgment. We affirm.
First, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
as moot Nalls’ requests for recusal. Nalls sought recusal only as an alternative to
his primary request for reconsideration. When Judge Seitz granted him
reconsideration, she appropriately dismissed his request for recusal as moot, and
he did not formally renew this request. We briefly note that, even if not moot,
Nalls would not be entitled to relief because he failed to establish a sufficient basis
for recusal. See Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2000).1
Second, to the extent Nalls contests the district court’s sua sponte transfer
of his case from the Southern District of Florida to the Middle District of Florida,
we also determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As a general
matter, cases arising under federal law may be brought only in a district where:
1
To the extent Nalls raises a similar challenge against Judge Hodges, we find he has
waived this issue by failing to raise it before the district court. See Miller v. King, 449 F.3d
1149, 1150 n.1 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
(1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place, or (3) the
defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise
be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). A district court may sua sponte transfer a civil
action to any other district where it might have been brought if doing so will be
convenient for the parties and witnesses and serve the interest of justice. See
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir.
2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (directing a district court to dismiss or transfer
an action to an appropriate venue if it determines that the action was filed in the
wrong district). Before proceeding, the court should provide the parties with
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Tazoe, 631 F.3d at 1336.
Here, when the district court transferred the case, the only remaining
defendants were unknown staff of the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex
(FCC Coleman), which is located in the Middle District of Florida. Nalls has
alleged that the relevant events occurred at Coleman and it appears that the
remaining defendants are located there. Nalls has failed to show a connection
between any defendant and the Southern District of Florida. As such, the
Southern District’s sua sponte review and transfer of venue was statutorily
appropriate. Nalls was given an opportunity to voice his objections to a transfer,
3
which the district court considered and rejected. Moreover, the defendants, who
appeared through the government solely to contest their status as proper parties to
this case, did not waive venue. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in transferring venue to the Middle District of Florida.
Finally, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Nalls’ complaint without
prejudice because Nalls failed to timely serve process on the defendants and has
not offered good cause for this failure. “Service of process is a jurisdictional
requirement:” a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a party that has not been
served. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Invs., 553 F.3d
1351, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008). To serve an officer or employee of the United States
sued in his individual capacity for acts occurring in connection with performance
of official duties, a party must serve both the United States and the officer or
employee by a proper method. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3), cross-referencing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). If service is not perfected within 120 days after the complaint
is filed, the district court–upon motion or sua sponte–must dismiss without
prejudice the action against the unserved party, or extend the time period upon a
showing of “good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
Nalls first filed his complaint against the unknown defendants on January 2,
2008. On April 21, 2008, he filed a “Notice Identifying ‘Unknown Defendants”
4
stating that some of the unknown defendants had been identified from discovered
records. The notice listed 18 corrections officers, medical staff, and administrative
personnel whom Nalls claimed were the unknown defendants. When the district
court entered its order of dismissal, more than two and half years had passed since
Nalls identified the unnamed defendants and nearly three years had passed since
he filed his complaint. In both the Southern District and Middle District, Nalls
resisted efforts from the district court to have him amend his complaint to name
the individual defendants and to serve process upon them. Nalls’ failure to serve
process in a timely fashion warranted dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Nalls nonetheless argues that dismissal was inappropriate because
identification of the defendants is not required in an action brought pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). This Court has acknowledged that a plaintiff may bring claims against an
unnamed defendant under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff lacks
sufficient information about the defendant’s identity at the time of filing the
complaint but would be able to obtain such information through discovery. See
Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992); see also Brown v. Sikes,
2112 F.3d 1205, 1209 n.4 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that “[a]ppellate courts have
acknowledged the difficulties faced by a prisoner in identifying wrongdoers before
5
filing a complaint”). However, neither this Court’s decisions nor Bivens support
Nalls’ claim that he may proceed indefinitely against unnamed defendants without
serving them or providing good cause for his failure to do so. See Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 390 n.2
(1971) (noting that the defendants had been served before the district court).
By failing to properly or timely serve any of the remaining defendants, there
were no defendants over which the district court could exercise jurisdiction, which
not only rendered it inappropriate to grant any final judgment in Nalls’s favor, but
also required dismissal of his case. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
6