White v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/24/2013 ORDERING 7 Plaintiff's request for default is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall complete service of process by serving the Commissioner, th e USA for the EDCA, and the Attorney General of the US at Washington, D.C., as specified above and in the FRCP, with the complaint, summons, scheduling order, a copy of this order, and other appropriate case documents. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a declaration demonstrating that such service of process has been completed. The deadlines outlined in the scheduling order will track the date of such service.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NATE WHITE,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:13-cv-0626-KJN
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
17
18
Plaintiff Nate White, represented by counsel, filed this social security action on April 1,
19
2013, and paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s
20
request for the entry of default against the Commissioner. (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons
21
discussed below, the court denies plaintiff’s request without prejudice and orders further service
22
on the Commissioner.
23
In addition to serving the Commissioner itself, a plaintiff in a social security action is
24
required to deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States attorney for the
25
district where the action is brought (i.e., the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
26
California), and to send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to
27
the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A) &
28
(B), (2). According to the affidavit of the process server filed by plaintiff, plaintiff served the
1
1
Commissioner by personally delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an individual
2
named Mimi Taylor at 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235 on April 29, 2013. (ECF
3
No. 5.) However, it appears that plaintiff did not also serve the United States Attorney for the
4
Eastern District of California or the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.,
5
and that service of process thus has not been completed.
6
Moreover, the Commissioner has previously advised the court that, due to inherent delays
7
when service is made upon the Commissioner in Baltimore, M.D., a copy of the summons and
8
complaint should instead be sent by registered or certified mail to the Commissioner of Social
9
Security, c/o Office of General Counsel, Region IX, 160 Spear Street, Suite 800, San Francisco,
10
CA, 94105-1545. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2). Although plaintiff’s counsel cannot be faulted for
11
being unaware of this information, it possibly explains the delay encountered by plaintiff’s
12
counsel, in addition to the fact that plaintiff did not complete the other components for service of
13
process on the Commissioner.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. Plaintiff’s request for default (ECF No. 7.) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
16
2. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall complete service of process by serving the
17
Commissioner, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and
18
the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C., as specified above and
19
in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the complaint, summons, scheduling
20
order, a copy of this order, and other appropriate case documents.
21
3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a declaration demonstrating that such
22
service of process has been completed. The deadlines outlined in the scheduling order
23
will track the date of such service.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2013
26
27
28
2
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?