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)

Download PDF
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

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?