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)

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