Van Hope-el v. U.S. Department of State, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER TERMINATING MOTIONS 27 28 29 ; ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply with Service Rules, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/15/2018. Show Cause Response due by 11/8/2018(Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOUDON VAN HOPE-EL,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0441 - DAD - JLT
ORDER TERMINATING MOTIONS
(Docs. 27, 28, 29)
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SERVICE RULES

On May 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed affidavits of service indicating that the summons,

17
18

complaint and “Statement of Claim,” were served by personal service on a person authorized to accept

19

service at the “U.S. Department of Justice c/o U.S. Attorney General, Jefferson Session, U.S. Attorney

20

General.” (Doc. 7) On the same date, he filed a similar proof of service on the “U.S. Department of

21

State.”

22

On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed an application for the entry of default against the United States

23

Department of State. (Doc. 13) The Court denied entry of default and noted that the proofs of service

24

were inadequate to demonstrate proper proof of service on the United States. (Doc. 18) The Court set

25

forth the requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and described why the service

26

was improper. Id. In response, the plaintiff filed documents, which, in essence, insist that service was

27
28
1

1

proper.1 (Docs. 20, 21, 22) On August 3, 2018, an Assistant United States Attorney filed a document

2

iterating the position that the United States has not been properly served and that it would not respond

3

until proper service was made. (Doc. 23) Despite this, the plaintiff has not effected proper service

4

and, instead, has filed many other pleadings. The plaintiff is advised that the Court will not consider

5

any of these filings or any future filings until proper service is made and the proper time for the

6

defendant to respond has passed. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s filings (Docs. 27, 28, 29) are TERMINATED;

8

2.

Within 21 days, the plaintiff SHALL file proof of service of the summons and
complaint, which demonstrates that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.4(a) have been

9
10

satisfied. Alternatively, within 21 days, he SHALL show good cause in writing why

11

the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m);
3.

12

Until the plaintiff has filed proof of service demonstrating proper and effective service
on the defendant he SHALL NOT file any further frivolous pleadings2.

13
14

The plaintiff is advised that his failure to comply with this order, and/or his failure to

15

demonstrate good cause for his failure to effect proper service, SHALL result in a

16

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

October 15, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mr. Van Hope-el’s analysis of the service he has made is incorrect. He is strongly urged to seek the advice of a lawyer or
to conduct careful and thorough legal research to assist him in understanding the Court’ prior order and Fed.R.Civ.P.4(a).
2
Thus far, nearly every filing the plaintiff has filed has been ill-advised, fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure
and are frivolous.
1

2