context: We have previously recognized that in forma pauperis plaintiffs "must rely on the district court and the [USMS] to effect service," and should not be penalized for delay in service beyond their control.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 51 F.3d 710, 713
citation_a.parenthetical: "The prisoner may rely on the Marshals Service to serve process, and the Marshals Service's failure to complete service is automatically 'good cause' to extend time for service under Rule 4(m)."
citation_a.sentence: See Robinson, 602 F.3d at 608-09 (citing Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 1995) (“The prisoner may rely on the Marshals Service to serve process, and the Marshals Service’s failure to complete service is automatically 'good cause’ to extend time for service under Rule 4(m).”)); see also Wright v. First Student, Inc., 710 F.3d 782, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[I]f the delay in service was the result of a delay by court staff or the USMS in fulfilling their obligations, [the plaintiffs] complaint should not have been dismissed under Rule 4(m).”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 710 F.3d 782, 783-84
citation_b.parenthetical: "[I]f the delay in service was the result of a delay by court staff or the USMS in fulfilling their obligations, [the plaintiffs] complaint should not have been dismissed under Rule 4(m)."
citation_b.sentence: See Robinson, 602 F.3d at 608-09 (citing Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 1995) (“The prisoner may rely on the Marshals Service to serve process, and the Marshals Service’s failure to complete service is automatically 'good cause’ to extend time for service under Rule 4(m).”)); see also Wright v. First Student, Inc., 710 F.3d 782, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[I]f the delay in service was the result of a delay by court staff or the USMS in fulfilling their obligations, [the plaintiffs] complaint should not have been dismissed under Rule 4(m).”).