USCA11 Case: 23-11733 Document: 169-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11733
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JULIA M. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants,
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP.
SERVICE COMPANY,
TERMINIX GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
USCA11 Case: 23-11733 Document: 169-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11733
JANE DOE'S,
JOHN DOE'S,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-03080-MHC
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Julia Robinson, proceeding pro se, appeals the dis-
trict court’s dismissal without prejudice of her complaint for failure
to timely serve the defendants: the United States, Choice Hotels
International Services Corp. (“Choice Hotels”), and Terminix
Global Holdings (“Terminix”). She argues that the district court
abused its discretion in dismissing her complaint because she suc-
cessfully made service by sending requests for waivers of service to
the defendants within 90 days of filing her amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 23-11733 Document: 169-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 3 of 5
23-11733 Opinion of the Court 3
Having reviewed the record and read the parties’ briefs, we affirm
the district court’s order of dismissal. 1
I.
“We review for abuse of discretion a court’s dismissal with-
out prejudice of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a
defendant under Rule 4(m).” Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty.
Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). “An abuse of discre-
tion occurs when a district court commits a clear error of judg-
ment, fails to follow the proper legal standard or process for mak-
ing a determination, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir.
2017). We cannot say that a district court abuses its discretion
when it dismisses a case without prejudice because parties can re-
file their complaints. See, e.g., Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv.,
720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983).
Furthermore, although we liberally construe complaints
filed by pro se plaintiffs, “this leniency does not give a court license
to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air
Jamaica, Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal
1 It is not clear if Robinson is also appealing from the district court’s orders
denying her motion for a temporary restraining order and her motion for a
preliminary injunction. However, she makes no mention of this in her brief,
and this failure constitutes a waiver of any alleged error by the district court
on the issue. In re Egidi, 571 F.3d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir. 2009).
USCA11 Case: 23-11733 Document: 169-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11733
quotation marks omitted). A pro se complaint still must comply
with procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
Cir. 2007).
II.
If a plaintiff does not serve process “within 90 days after the
complaint is filed,” a district court must dismiss the action without
prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). As an alternative to serving pro-
cess, a plaintiff may request that defendants waive service. Id. R.
4(d). However, a “defendant is not required to waive formal ser-
vice.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281. The United States may
not waive service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), (i). If a defendant does
not do so, full service of process must be made within the allotted
time. Id. If service is not made within 90 days, a plaintiff may avoid
dismissal if she can show “good cause for the failure.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m). “Good cause exists only when some outside factor, such
as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence,
prevented service.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281 (quotation
omitted and alteration adopted).
Even “when a district court finds that a plaintiff fails to show
good cause for failing to effect timely service pursuant to Rule
4(m), the district court must still consider whether any other cir-
cumstances warrant an extension of time based on the facts of the
case.” Id. at 1282. “Only after considering whether any such fac-
tors exist may the district court exercise its discretion and either
dismiss the case without prejudice or direct that service be effected
within a specified time.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11733 Document: 169-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 5 of 5
23-11733 Opinion of the Court 5
III.
The record demonstrates that the district court correctly de-
termined that Robinson’s attempts to serve the defendants were
well beyond the 90-day limit and her requests for waiver did not
toll that time. In her response to Choice’s motion to dismiss, Rob-
inson admitted that she sent the request for waiver of service after
the expiration of the 90-day period. The record also supports the
district court’s determination that none of the reasons cited by
Robinson constitute good cause. The district court issued a show
cause order for Robinson to provide reasons why it should not dis-
miss her complaint for failure to serve the defendants. In her re-
sponse, Robinson asserted that her service requests were sabotaged
by the U.S. Postal Service, that she had not read Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4 in its entirety, and that she thought she could
wait for a response from the defendants to her requests for waiver
before she paid for full service of process. Robinson fails to demon-
strate that the district court abused its discretion in finding that she
did not show good cause to excuse her failure to timely serve the
defendants. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly con-
sidered her proffered reasons for failure to timely serve the defend-
ants and found them lacking.
Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
firm the district court’s order dismissing Robinson’s complaint
without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.