Balbuena v. McHugh et al

Filing 7

Order STRIKING 4 Proof of Service, 3 Proof of Service, 5 Proof of Service filed by Leo J. Hickman, 6 Proof of Service filed by Department of the Army as set out. Miscellaneous deadline set for 3/1/2015 for plaintiff to arrange service as set out.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/2/2014. (copy to plaintiff) (cmj)

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT

FOR
 THE
 SOUTHERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 ALABAMA

SOUTHERN
 DIVISION

BRENDA
 E.
 BALBUENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

 JOHN
 M.
 McHUGH,

 Secretary

Department
 of
 the
 Army,
 Agency,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL
 ACTION
 NO.
 14-­‐00188-­‐KD-­‐C

ORDER

On
 April
 25,
 2014,
 Brenda
 E.
 Balbuena
 (Balbuena),
 an
 employee
 of
 the
 U.S.
 Army

Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 Mobile
 District,
 filed
 a
 pro
 se
 complaint
 alleging
 that
 she
 was

discriminated
 against
 on
 basis
 of
 “age
 and
 reprisal”
 (doc.
 1).

 The
 summons
 were
 issued
 May

1,
 2014
 (doc.
 2).

 Balbuena
 sues
 John
 M.
 McHugh
 in
 his
 official
 capacity
 as
 Secretary
 of
 the

Department
 of
 the
 Army,
 the
 Department
 of
 the
 Army
 as
 an
 “Agency”,
 and
 possibly
 Leo
 J.

Hickman
 in
 his
 capacity
 as
 Chief
 of
 Contracting
 or
 in
 his
 individual
 capacity.
 1

On
 July
 15,
 2014,
 Balbuena
 filed
 four
 Proofs
 of
 Service,
 which
 indicate
 that
 she

attempted
 to
 serve
 defendants
 McHugh,
 Hickman
 and
 the
 United
 States
 Attorney
 General
 by

certified
 mail,
 return
 receipt
 requested.2

 There
 is
 no
 Proof
 of
 Service
 as
 to
 the
 United
 States

1

 Although
 Hickman
 is
 not
 identified
 in
 the
 caption
 of
 Balbuena’s
 complaint,
 she
 identifies

2
 Rule
 4(i)(2)
 applies
 to
 service
 of
 an
 agency
 of
 the
 United
 States
 such
 as
 the
 Department
 of

the
 Army
 and
 an
 officer
 or
 employee
 such
 as
 McHugh
 and
 Hickman
 sued
 in
 their
 official

capacity.

 The
 Rule
 states
 as
 follows:
 “To
 serve
 a
 United
 States
 agency
 or
 corporation,
 or
 a

United
 States
 officer
 or
 employee
 sued
 only
 in
 an
 official
 capacity,
 a
 party
 must
 serve
 the

United
 States
 and
 also
 send
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 summons
 and
 of
 the
 complaint
 by
 registered
 or

certified
 mail
 to
 the
 agency,
 corporation,
 officer,
 or
 employee.”
 Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.
 4(i)(2).

 To
 the

extent
 that
 Balbuena
 sues
 Hickman
 in
 his
 individual
 capacity,
 Rule
 4(i)(3)
 provides
 that
 “[t]o

serve
 a
 United
 States
 officer
 or
 employee
 sued
 in
 an
 individual
 capacity

 .
 .
 .
 (whether
 or
 not

Attorney
 for
 this
 district
 or
 as
 to
 the
 Department
 of
 the
 Army,
 as
 an
 agency
 of
 the
 United

States.

Balbuena
 signed
 each
 Proof
 of
 Service
 as
 the
 “Server”
 and
 listed
 her
 address.

However,
 Balbuena
 is
 a
 party
 and
 Rule
 4(c)(2)
 provides
 that
 “[a]ny
 person
 who
 is
 at
 least
 18

years
 old
 and
 not
 a
 party
 may
 serve
 a
 summons
 and
 complaint.”

 Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.
 4(c)(2)

(emphasis
 added).

 A
 similar
 circumstance
 was
 addressed
 by
 the
 Court
 of
 Appeals
 for
 the

Eleventh
 Circuit
 in
 Albra
 v.
 Advan,
 Inc.,
 490
 F.
 3d
 826
 (11th
 Cir.
 2007).

 Albra,
 filed
 a
 pro
 se

complaint
 against
 his
 employer
 Advan,
 Inc.

 He
 alleged
 violations
 of
 the
 Americans
 with

Disabilities
 Act
 and
 the
 Florida
 Omnibus
 Aids
 Act.

 The
 return
 of
 service
 to
 Advan’s

registered
 agent
 showed
 Albra
 as
 the
 process
 server.

 The
 circuit
 court
 explained
 as
 follows:

 Albra
 argues
 that
 service
 to
 Advan
 was
 proper
 because
 he
 mailed
 a
 copy
 of

the
 summons
 to
 Advan's
 registered
 agent,
 Wayne
 Abbott,
 who
 was
 also

named
 as
 a
 defendant
 in
 the
 action.

 .
 .
 .

Federal
 Rule
 of
 Civil
 Procedure
 4(c)
 provides
 that
 service
 of
 process
 shall
 be

effected
 by
 serving
 a
 summons
 “
 together
 with
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 complaint.
 ...

within
 the
 time
 allowed
 under
 [Rule
 4(m)]
 ....
 by
 any
 person
 who
 is
 not
 a

party
 and
 who
 is
 at
 least
 18
 years
 of
 age.”
 Fed.R.Civ.P.
 4(c)
 (emphasis
 added).

A
 defendant's
 actual
 notice
 is
 not
 sufficient
 to
 cure
 defectively
 executed

service.
 See
 Schnabel
 v.
 Wells,
 922
 F.2d
 726,
 728
 (11th
 Cir.1991)

(interpreting
 former
 Rule
 4(j)),
 superseded
 in
 part
 by
 rule
 as
 stated
 in

Horenkamp
 v.
 Van
 Winkle
 And
 Co.,
 Inc.,
 402
 F.3d
 1129,
 1132
 n.
 2
 (11th
 Cir.

the
 officer
 or
 employee
 is
 also
 sued
 in
 an
 official
 capacity),
 a
 party
 must
 serve
 the
 United

States
 and
 also
 serve
 the
 officer
 or
 employee
 under
 Rule
 4(e),
 (f),
 or
 (g).”

 Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.

4(i)(3).

Thus,
 in
 either
 instance
 the
 United
 States
 must
 be
 served.

 To
 do
 so,
 Balbuena
 must

 “(A)(i)

deliver
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 summons
 and
 of
 the
 complaint
 to
 the
 United
 States
 attorney
 for
 the

district
 where
 the
 action
 is
 brought-­‐-­‐or
 to
 an
 assistant
 United
 States
 attorney
 or
 clerical

employee
 whom
 the
 United
 States
 attorney
 designates
 in
 a
 writing
 filed
 with
 the
 court

clerk—or
 (ii)
 send
 a
 copy
 of
 each
 by
 registered
 or
 certified
 mail
 to
 the
 civil-­‐process
 clerk
 at

the
 United
 States
 attorney's
 office;
 [and]
 (B)
 send
 a
 copy
 of
 each
 by
 registered
 or
 certified

mail
 to
 the
 Attorney
 General
 of
 the
 United
 States
 at
 Washington,
 D.C.
 .
 .
 .
 “
 Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.

4(i)(1).

2

2005).
 And
 although
 we
 are
 to
 give
 liberal
 construction
 to
 the
 pleadings
 of

pro
 se
 litigants,
 “we
 nevertheless
 have
 required
 them
 to
 conform
 to

procedural
 rules.”
 Loren
 v.
 Sasser,
 309
 F.3d
 1296,
 1304
 (11th
 Cir.2002).

Here,
 the
 record
 demonstrates
 that
 Albra,
 the
 plaintiff
 in
 the
 suit,
 served

Advan
 by
 mailing
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 summons
 without
 attaching
 a
 copy
 of
 the

complaint.
 Accordingly,
 Albra
 failed
 to
 properly
 effect
 service
 upon
 Advan
 in

accordance
 with
 Rule
 4(c),
 and
 the
 district
 court's
 grant
 of
 Advan's
 motion
 to

dismiss
 was
 proper.

Id.
 at
 828-­‐829
 (italics
 in
 original).

For
 purpose
 of
 this
 decision,
 the
 Court
 will
 assume
 that
 Balbuena
 attached
 a
 copy
 of

the
 complaint
 to
 the
 summons
 that
 she
 attempted
 to
 serve.
 3

 However,
 because
 Balbuena
 is

the
 plaintiff,
 and
 thus
 a
 party
 in
 the
 suit,
 she
 failed
 to
 properly
 effect
 service
 under
 Rule
 4(c).

Accordingly,
 the
 Proofs
 of
 Service
 are
 STRICKEN.

 See
 also
 Green
 v.
 Florida,
 2013
 WL

5567324
 (M.D.
 Fla.
 Oct.
 9,
 2013)
 (citing
 Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.
 4(c)(2)
 and
 4(c)(1)
 and
 finding
 that
 the

certificates
 of
 service
 signed
 by
 plaintiff
 did
 not
 constitute
 proper
 service
 of
 process
 upon

the
 defendants).
 ““Read
 together,
 then,
 Rules
 4(i)(1)
 and
 4(c)(2)
 direct
 that
 service
 upon
 the

United
 States
 be
 made
 (1)
 by
 a
 person
 ...
 age
 18
 or
 older
 (2)
 who
 is
 not
 a
 party
 (3)
 either

through
 in-­‐person
 delivery
 or
 sending
 by
 certified
 mail
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 summons
 and

complaint
 to
 both
 the
 Attorney
 General
 and
 the
 United
 States
 Attorney
 for
 the
 judicial

district
 where
 the
 action
 is
 brought.”
 Lindsey
 v.
 United
 States,
 448
 F.Supp.2d
 37,
 42

(D.C.Cir.2006)
 abrogated
 on
 separate
 grounds,
 Ramer
 v.
 United
 States,
 620
 F.Supp.2d
 90,
 99

(D.D.C.2009)
 (denying
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 for
 insufficiency
 of
 service
 of
 process).

Balbuena
 is
 not
 excused
 from
 compliance
 with
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil
 Procedure

including
 the
 rules
 that
 apply
 to
 effecting
 service
 upon
 the
 defendants.

 “[B]oth
 the
 Supreme

3

 Rule
 4(c)(1)
 states
 that
 “[a]
 A
 summons
 must
 be
 served
 with
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 complaint.
 The

plaintiff
 is
 responsible
 for
 having
 the
 summons
 and
 complaint
 served
 within
 the
 time

allowed
 by
 Rule
 4(m)
 and
 must
 furnish
 the
 necessary
 copies
 to
 the
 person
 who
 makes

service.”.

3

Court
 and
 [the
 Eleventh
 Circuit]
 have
 concluded
 that
 a
 defendant’s
 pro
 se
 status
 in
 civil

litigation
 generally
 will
 not
 excuse
 mistakes
 he
 makes
 regarding
 procedural
 rules.”
 Nelson
 v.

Barden,
 145
 Fed.
 Appx.
 303,
 311
 n.10
 (11th
 Cir.
 2005);
 accord
 Local
 Rule
 83.9(b)(“All

litigants
 proceeding
 pro
 se
 shall
 be
 bound
 by
 and
 comply
 with
 all
 local
 rules
 of
 this
 Court,

and
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil
 ...
 Procedure,
 unless
 otherwise
 excused
 from
 operation
 of
 the

rules
 by
 court
 order.”)

However,
 since
 Balbuena
 is
 proceeding
 pro
 se
 and
 has
 now
 been
 apprised
 again4
 of

her
 obligation
 to
 follow
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil
 Procedure,
 the
 Court
 extends
 her
 deadline

for
 service
 beyond
 the
 120-­‐day
 period
 set
 forth
 in
 Rule
 4(m)5
 of
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil

Procedure.
 Horenkamp
 v.
 Van
 Winkle
 &
 Company,
 Inc.,
 402
 F.3d
 1129,
 1132
 (11th
 Cir.
 2005)

(acknowledging
 that
 the
 district
 court
 has
 discretion
 to
 extend
 the
 time
 for
 service).

Therefore,
 Balbuena
 shall
 arrange
 service
 of
 the
 Summons
 and
 Complaint
 and
 file

Proofs
 of
 Service
 in
 a
 manner
 that
 complies
 with
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil
 Procedure,

on
 or
 before
 March
 1,
 2015.

4
 The
 docket
 indicates
 that
 Balbuena
 was
 given
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 Pro
 Se
 Litigant
 Guide.

 As
 to

service
 of
 the
 summons
 and
 complaint,
 the
 Guide
 states
 as
 follows:

(2)
 Service
 of
 Summons
 and
 Complaint
 -­‐
 Fed.R.Civ.P.
 4(c)(2)
 states,
 “service

may
 be
 effected
 by
 any
 person
 who
 is
 not
 a
 party
 and
 who
 is
 at
 least
 18

years
 of
 age.”
 Using
 this
 method,
 you
 direct
 someone
 else
 to
 deliver
 or
 serve

a
 copy
 of
 the
 complaint
 and
 summons
 on
 the
 defendant(s).
 The
 most

common
 methods
 for
 effecting
 service
 are
 certified
 mail
 with
 a
 return

receipt,
 or
 personal
 service.
 Private
 process
 servers
 will
 also
 do
 this
 for
 a

fee.

Pro
 Se
 Litigant
 Guide,
 p.
 5.

5
 Rule
 4(m)
 provides
 a
 time
 limit
 for
 service
 of
 120
 days.

 However
 the
 Court,
 “on
 motio
 or

on
 its
 own
 after
 notice
 to
 the
 plaintiff
 -­‐-­‐

 must
 dismiss
 the
 action
 without
 prejudice
 .
 .
 .
 or

order
 that
 service
 be
 made
 within
 a
 specified
 time.”

 Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.
 4(m).

4

Additionally,
 Balbuena
 is
 warned
 that
 failure
 to
 do
 so
 may
 result
 in
 dismissal
 of

this
 action
 without
 prejudice
 for
 failure
 to
 comply
 with
 this
 Court’s
 order
 and
 failure

to
 comply
 with
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil
 Procedure.

 See
 Link
 v.
 Wabash
 R.R.,
 370
 U.S.

626,
 630
 31,
 82
 S.Ct.
 1386
 (1962)
 (interpreting
 Rule
 41(b)
 as
 not
 restricting
 the
 court’s

inherent
 authority
 to
 dismiss
 sua
 sponte
 an
 action
 for
 lack
 of
 prosecution);
 Mingo
 v.
 Sugar

Cane
 Growers
 Co-­‐op,
 864
 F.2d
 101,
 102
 (11th
 Cir.
 1989)
 (“The
 district
 court
 possesses
 the

inherent
 power
 to
 police
 its
 docket[]
 .
 .
 .
 [and]
 .
 .
 .
 [i]ncident
 to
 this
 power,
 the
 judge
 may

impose
 formal
 sanctions
 upon
 dilatory
 litigants.
 The
 sanctions
 imposed
 can
 range
 from
 a

simple
 reprimand
 to
 an
 order
 dismissing
 the
 action
 with
 or
 without
 prejudice.”)

Done
 and
 ordered
 the
 2nd
 day
 of
 December
 2014.

s/
 Kristi
 K.
 DuBose

KRISTI
 K.
 DuBOSE

UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 JUDGE

5