Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Caldwell v. Department of Justice, The (cod, 2021-06-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caldwell v. Department of Justice, The
D. Colo. · 2021 · confidence medium
Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091, 1091 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding plaintiff failed to show proof of service because there was “no authenticating post office stamp on any receipt showing they actually passed through the mails, nor [was] there a receipt or acknowledgment showing actual delivery of the complaint to the purported defendants”); see also Butler v. People of Ninth Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Borden-Vasallo (ID 108165) v. Miami County Sheriff's Office
D. Kan. · 2020 · confidence medium
“Having chosen to file a civil action in the district court, [a pro se litigant] assumed the responsibility for complying with the rules of civil procedure.” Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091, 1091 (10th Cir.1997).
cited Cited "see" Fejerang v. Armstrong
D. Colo. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091, 1091 (10th Cir. 1997) (A pro se plaintiff in in federal district court “assume[s] the responsibility for complying with the rules of civil procedure.
discussed Cited "see" Knight v. Mooring Capital Fund, LLC
10th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091, 1091 (10th Cir.1997) (plaintiff failed to show service because there was “no authenticating post office stamp on any receipt showing they actually passed through the mails, nor [was] there a receipt or acknowledgment showing actual delivery of the complaint to the purported defendants”); Colclazier & Assocs. v. Stephens, 277 P.3d 1285, 1290 (Okla.Civ.App.2012) (“[A]bsent any documentary evidence supporting the Law Firm’s claim of attempted mailings, the district court could not have determined that service by mail had been made.”).
cited Cited "see" Price v. Cochran
10th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir.1997).
cited Cited "see" Walker v. University of Colo
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091, 1091 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lisa Homer v. Nathaniel Jones-Bey
7th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir.1997) (certified mail receipts which are not stamped by the post office and which contain no acknowledgment showing actual delivery are insufficient to demonstrate service); Gulley v. Mayo Foundation, 886 F.2d 161 165-66 (8th Cir.1989) (mail receipt is insufficient if signed by mail room employee rather than intended recipient because it provides no evidence of actual, timely notice); See also Scheerger v. Wiencek, 34 F.Supp. 805 (W.D.N.Y.1940); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles W. CHESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lee GREEN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Federal Bureau of Prison, North Central Region; Kathleen Hawks, Director, Federal Bureau of Prison, Defendants-Appellees
97-1064.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 24, 1997.
120 F.3d 1091
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18984
1997 WL 419757
Seymour, Porfilio, Murphy.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing without prejudice appellant’s pro se civil rights case for failure to obtain service within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Mr. Chester claims to have established proof of service because he filed with the district court “certified mail receipts” which the district court did not recognize. The “receipts” in the record purport to show payment of postage for certified mail sent to Kathleen Hawks and Lee Green and delivery of certified mail to Ms. Hawks. There is no authenticating post office stamp on any receipt showing they actually passed through the mails, nor is there a receipt or acknowledgment showing actual delivery of the complaint to the purported defendants. Moreover, there is nothing in the record indicating compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i) pertaining to service upon officers of the United States. Because the action was dismissed without prejudice, Mr. Chester can file again and obtain proper service. We can find nothing erroneous in the disposition made by the district court.

Mr. Chester faults the district court for making no effort to “arbitrate the case” or “get the parties together on the phone to resolve the issue.” Having chosen to file a civil action in the district court, Mr. Chester assumed the responsibility for complying with the rules of civil procedure. The first requirement of those rules is to obtain service on the defendants so the court would have jurisdiction over them. In the absence of such jurisdiction, the court had no authority over the defendants, even to the extent of “get[ting] the parties together.”

Mr. Chester has failed to comply with this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to pay the assessment of fees made by the clerk. In view of that failure the appeal is DISMISSED.