# Hansan v. Fairfax County School Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 21, 2010 · 405 F. App'x 793

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/181507

## Case

- **Full name:** Adam M. HANSAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 21, 2010
- **Citations:** 405 F. App'x 793
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Gregory
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/181507

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “the district court has discretion to extend the period if the plaintiff can show excusable neglect for his failure to serve”
- stating that, pursuant to Rule 4(m), “[t]he district court must extend the 120-day period if the plaintiff shows good cause for his failure to timely serve the defendant”
- noting that plaintiff “was unable to establish good cause or excusable neglect” for failing to effectuate proper service
- stating a rule contrary to Mendez

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1218

ADAM M. HANSAN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00558-GBL-TRJ)

Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 21, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David P. Olslund, Arnold, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas J.
Cawley, Jill Marie Dennis, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, McLean,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Adam Hansan appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his case without prejudice for untimely service.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 120 days after

a complaint is filed. The district court must extend the 120-

day period if the plaintiff shows good cause for his failure to

timely serve the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Additionally, the district court has discretion to extend the

period if the plaintiff can show excusable neglect for his

failure to serve. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Henderson v. United

States, 517 U.S. 654, 662-63 (1996). We review a dismissal for

untimely or improper service for abuse of discretion. Shao v.

Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 986 F.2d 700, 708 (4th Cir. 1993).

We hold that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing Hansan’s case. Service was untimely,

as it was made almost fifteen months after the original

complaint was filed and over seven months after the case was

transferred from the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia.

Further, Hansan was unable to establish good cause or

excusable neglect justifying the delay. Hansan argues that

2
there was good cause because he was effectively acting pro se

while he searched for local counsel after his case was

transferred and he believed that the Defendant had already been

served. Pro se status, however, is insufficient to establish

good cause, even where the pro se plaintiff mistakenly believes

that service was made properly. See McNeil v. United States,

508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that

procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be

interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed

without counsel.”); Jonas v. Citibank, 414 F. Supp. 2d 411, 416

(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that a pro se plaintiff’s mistaken

belief that service was proper did not amount to good cause).

Additionally, Hansen provided no justification for his seven-

month delay in finding local counsel in order to effect proper

service, thus failing to demonstrate excusable neglect

warranting an extension.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/181507. Public record. Not legal advice.