Felecia R. Chevis v. Nancy A. Berryhill
Filing
14
(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Serve by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve. To discharge this order to show cause, Plaintiff may do any of the following on or before January 25, 2019. (See document for further details.) (sbou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:18-cv-00728-CAS-KES
Date: December 27, 2018
Title: FELECIA R. CHEVIS v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Maria Barr
Courtroom Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why
Case Should Not Be Dismissed For
Failure to Serve.
In April 2018, Plaintiff Felecia R. Chevis (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit appealing
the denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
On April 17, 2018, the Court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”) directing
Plaintiff to accomplish service in the manner required by Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure within ninety (90) days. (Dkt. 7.)
On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a proof of service declaration in which James
Jacobs declared that on May 16, 2018, he mailed copies of the summons, complaint, and
certificate of interested parties, return receipt requested, to (1) the U.S. Attorney’s Office
for the Central District of California, (2) the Attorney General of the United States, and
(3) the Social Security Administration. (Dkt. 8.) Plaintiff attached certified mail receipts
reflecting mailings to these three addressees. (Id. at 4.)
Per the CMO, Defendant should have filed an answer and lodged the
administrative record within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of service.
(Dkt. 7 § III.) Although this 120-day period has expired, Defendant has not appeared.
Accordingly, on November 8, 2018, the Court issued an order to show cause (Dkt. 9),
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:18-cv-00728-CAS-KES
Date: December 27, 2018
Page 2
which Plaintiff discharged by moving for an entry of default. (Dkt. 10.) The Clerk
issued a Notice of Deficiency, indicating that the requested default could not be entered
because Plaintiff did not attach to her proof of service certified return receipts showing
acknowledgment of receipt. (Dkt. 11.)
To clarify the issues concerning service of process in this action, the Court
requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California enter a
special appearance—without waiving any potential objections to service defects—to
describe the reason(s) Defendant has not yet appeared in this action and any known
service defects. (Dkt. 12.)
On December 20, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office submitted a response
indicating that: (1) Plaintiff did not properly serve the Office because Plaintiff or
someone on her behalf mailed a copy of the complaint to the Office without a copy of the
summons, which is required by Rule 4(i), and (2) the Office sent Plaintiff a letter dated
May 24, 2018, informing her of the defects in service. (Dkt. 13.)
The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to serve. To discharge this order to show cause, Plaintiff may do
any of the following on or before January 25, 2019:
1. Correct the identified defects in service to comply with Rule 4(i) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. If Plaintiff contends that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was properly served,
contrary to the Office’s response, then Plaintiff may file a declaration
disputing the Office’s statement of facts and explaining how Plaintiff has
complied with the service requirements of Rule 4(i).
3. If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this lawsuit, then Plaintiff may file a
“Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.”
The federal courthouse in Riverside (which appears closest to Plaintiff’s residence
in Redlands) operates a clinic for self-represented parties staffed by volunteer lawyers
(called the “pro se clinic”). If Plaintiff would like free legal help responding to this Order
to Show Cause, then Plaintiff should visit the Court’s website at
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/, click on the “Pro Se Clinic – Riverside” link in the box
labeled “People without Lawyers,” and make an appointment to visit the clinic.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?