Mississippi Supreme Court

Perry v. Andy

October 30, 2003858 So. 2d 143

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of the Perrys' medical-negligence action because they failed to serve the defendants within the required 120-day period and did not establish good cause for the delay. Although the Perrys hand-delivered the complaint to one defendant and thereby provided actual notice, they did not timely serve a summons, and their pro se status and ignorance of the service rules did not excuse noncompliance. The court held that pro se plaintiffs must strictly comply with the service requirement.

Holding

  • Whether pro se plaintiffs must strictly comply with the 120-day service requirement or may rely on substantial compliance and pro se status to establish good cause.. Pro se plaintiffs must strictly comply with the 120-day service requirement. Delivery of the complaint without a summons, actual notice, good-faith efforts, and ignorance of the rules do not establish good cause for untimely service.

Docket 2002-CA-01436-SCT

Cited authorities

  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)
  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)
  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)
  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)
  • Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)
  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)
  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)
  • Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF