Thistle v. Biden et al

Filing 12

Order Extending Deadline for Plaintiff to Effectuate Service. Signed by District Judge Robert S. Huie on 8/1/2022.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ave)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID JOHN THISTLE,

Case No.: 22-CV-65-RSH-NLS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR.,
President of the United States, and
MERRICK BRIAN GARLAND, United
States Attorney General,

15
16
17

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE
FOR PLAINTIFF TO EFFECTUATE
SERVICE

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 18, 2022, ECF No. 1, but he has failed to

20

properly serve Defendants. To serve United States officers or employees in their official

21

capacity, Plaintiff “must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons

22

and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or

23

employee.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2); see also id. 4(i)(1) (describing method of serving

24

United States). On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff mailed copies of the summons and

25

Complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office—not the Attorney General’s office—in

26

Washington, DC, ECF No. 6 at 3, and President Biden at the White House, ECF No. 7 at

27

3, via first-class mail. Plaintiff has failed to serve the United States in the manner

28

prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1). Additionally, with respect to
1
22-CV-65-RSH-NLS

1

Defendant Merrick Brian Garland, Plaintiff delivered the Complaint and summons to the

2

incorrect office. Plaintiff has therefore failed to properly serve Defendants within 90 days

3

of the filing of the Complaint, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). If a

4

complaint is not served within 90 days, the Court may “order that service be made within

5

a specified time,” and if there is “good cause for the failure, the court must extend the

6

time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, Plaintiff at least

7

attempted to properly serve Defendants. Additionally, pro se litigants are entitled to

8

leniency with respect to technical procedural matters. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d

9

915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[P]laintiff represented himself and therefore, in evaluating his

10

compliance with the technical rules of civil procedure, we treat him with great

11

leniency.”). The Court thereby ORDERS that Plaintiff shall have an additional sixty (60)

12

days after the date of this Order to properly effectuate service of the summons and

13

Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to properly serve the Complaint by that time, the Court may

14

dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: August 1, 2022

____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

22-CV-65-RSH-NLS