PERKINS v. MISCHTIAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-03-11No. No. 20-50707

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Perkins's case for failure to effect proper service and its denial of his motion for relief from judgment.

Wesley Perkins brought a civil lawsuit in federal district court without legal representation. The district court dismissed his case because Perkins failed to properly serve the defendants within the required 90-day period and did not respond to the court's order directing him to explain why the case should not be dismissed. After the court rejected Perkins's request for relief from the dismissal judgment, he appealed to the appellate court.

On appeal, Perkins did not challenge the reasons for the dismissal. Instead, he argued that the district court judge should have stepped aside from the case based on grounds that were not clearly articulated. Perkins claimed, among other things, that the judge had referred his case to arbitration without his permission, though the appellate court found no evidence this had actually occurred. The appellate court determined Perkins's arguments lacked merit and upheld the district court's actions.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Dismissal for failure to serve defendants within 90 days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
Denial of motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
Whether the district court judge should have been disqualified

Procedural posture

Perkins appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil complaint for lack of proper service and the subsequent denial of his motion for relief from judgment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Proceeding pro se, Wesley Perkins filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. After Perkins failed to serve the defendants within 90 days or to timely respond to the district courts order to show cause, the court dismissed the case for lack of proper service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court then denied Perkins Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, and Perkins timely appealed.

On appeal, Perkins raises no arguments as to why his claim should not have been dismissed for lack of proper service. Instead, Perkins contends that the district court judge should have been disqualified for reasons that are unclear, including because the court referred the matter to arbitration without Perkinss consent. The court did not refer the case to arbitration. Finding Perkinss arguments meritless, we AFFIRM.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.