Missud v. State of California et al

Filing 42

ORDER (1) Re Service of Summons and Complaint on All Defendants and (2) Denying 37 Motion to Compel by Judge Edward M. Chen. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PATRICK MISSUD, 9 Plaintiff, 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER (1) RE SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON ALL DEFENDANTS AND (2) DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 12 Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 37) For the Northern District of California 10 United States District Court No. C-12-5468 EMC v. 13 14 15 On November 28, 2012, this Court issued an order which provided, inter alia, that this Court 16 would consider no further filings from Plaintiff unless he files proof that he has served all 17 defendants with the complaint in this action. On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed an affidavit 18 indicated that he had personally served some of the defendants. He does not provide the date he 19 effected service. Though he attaches several certified mail receipts addressed to “SCOTUS,” “SF 20 City Attorney Herrera,” and “California Attorney General Harris,” the fields for address and postage 21 are blank on the receipts. Docket No. 36 Ex. 2 at 7. 22 On December 6, Plaintiff filed another affidavit indicating that the Defendants had been 23 served. Docket No. 40. He attaches receipts from mailings to the San Francisco City Attorney, 24 California Attorney General and Autoreturn. These receipts all have signatures in a block titled 25 “Complete This Section on Delivery”; two of the three indicate November 30, 2012 as a delivery 26 date. Docket No. 40 Ex. 1. Plaintiff does not, however, attach a proof of service, or indicate who 27 served the Defendants. Docket No. 40 at 2-3. 28 1 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny person who is at least 18 2 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.” Rule 4(c)(2) (emphasis added). As 3 a party to this action, Plaintiff is not able to serve the summons and complaint under Rule 4. 4 Though Plaintiff states that he is “acting as a California Private Attorney General,” neither of the 5 statutes that he cites supports this assertion, or provides that he may properly serve defendants 6 despite being a party to this action. Docket No. 36 at 2. 7 8 As Plaintiff has not filed proof that Defendants have been properly served under Rule 4, this Court will not consider any further filings until he files such proof. 9 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel production of documents from non-party D.R. Horton, Inc. Attachments to Docket No. 40 also indicate that he has served various other parties and 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 non-parties with subpoenas to produce documents in this case. Docket No. 40 Ex. 1 at 20, 25-29, 12 Ex. 2 at 4. In addition to the fact that Plaintiff has not yet served the Defendants in this action, any 13 discovery is premature at this point as there has been no Rule 26(f) conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as 15 required by Rule 26(f)” subject to certain exceptions not applicable here). Further, the subpoena 16 that is the subject of the motion to compel concerns “All Escrow Documents for purchase of 812 17 Elderberry Loop, Vacaville, CA 95688 to George Poppe.” Docket No. 37 Ex. 1. Plaintiff offers no 18 explanation for how this request is related to his claims in this case, which concerns allegations of 19 corruption and illegal actions on the part of various San Francisco city departments and California 20 state courts. The subpoenas attached to Docket No. 40 likewise seem to include requests for 21 information of unclear relevance to this case. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Accordingly, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion compel production of documents and 2 ORDERS the subpoenas he issued quashed. Further, Plaintiff is ORDERED to refrain from 3 conducting further discovery in this case and is ORDERED not to file any pleadings, motions or 4 documents other than proofs of service consistent with Rule 4 until further order of this Court. 5 This order disposes of Docket No. 37. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 11, 2012 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?