USCA11 Case: 25-10608 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10608 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

SIDNEY RENARD PARRISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

GEORGIA STATE PATROL, THOMIS BOND, Patrol Officer, in Official Capacity, STEPHEN SPIRES, Patrol Officer, in Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cv-00052-JRH-BKE ____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-10608 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10608

Sidney Parrish, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 false arrest complaint against the Georgia State Patrol and two of its officers, Thomis Bond and Stephen Spires, for failing to timely serve the three defendants. He argues that the dis- trict court abused its discretion because it did not consider the hard- ships that prevented him effecting service of process. We review a district court’s dismissal without prejudice of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a summons and com- plaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for abuse of dis- cretion. See Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009). This standard is “deferential,” and provides the court with a “wide range of choice.” BLOM Bank SAL v. Honick- man, 145 S.Ct. 1612, 1622-23 (2025) (citations and internal quota- tion marks omitted). We will therefore affirm unless we conclude that the court committed a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal standard. See Rance, 583 F.3d at 1286. Although “lib- eral construction” is given to pro se pleadings, pro se litigants must still “conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). Upon filing a complaint, the plaintiff is responsible for ensur- ing the summons and complaint are served within the time re- quired by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action USCA11 Case: 25-10608 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 3 of 4

25-10608 Opinion of the Court 3

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Good cause exists “when some outside factor, such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented service.” Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). 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 court must still consider whether any other circum- stances warrant an extension of time based on the facts of the case.” Id. at 1282. “Although not an exhaustive list, . . . relief may be jus- tified, for example, if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action, or if the defendant is evading service or conceals a defect in attempted service.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Only after considering whether any such factors 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. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis- missing Mr. Parrish’s complaint without prejudice. Mr. Parrish never timely served any of the defendants, and never made any at- tempts to effect service. Nor did he provide the court good cause to extend the service deadline. The court considered, moreover, whether the circumstances of the case warranted an extension prior to dismissing the complaint. Although Mr. Parrish explained USCA11 Case: 25-10608 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10608

his hardships to the court, he did not identify any outside factor, such as reliance on faulty advice, to explain his failure to timely serve any defendant. See D.E. 23 at 2-4; Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281. The court’s decision to dismiss the complaint without prejudice was within its wide discretion, particularly given that Mr. Parrish did not face any statute of limitations issues if he refiled the complaint. AFFIRMED.