Davis v. State of California et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Applications for Clerk's Entry of Default (Docs. 6, 7, and 8) are denied. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 4/3/17. Mailed to pro se party Ronald E. Davis by regular and certified mail. (Certified Tracking Number: 7012 3460 0000 8262 5927)(kao)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RONALD E. DAVIS,
Case No. 17-2125-JAR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, and CALIFORNIA
STATE AGENCY INSURER,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT
Plaintiff Ronald E. Davis, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendants
seeking to recover for alleged violations of his privacy and Constitutional rights, as well as
negligence. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Applications for Clerk’s Entry of
Default (Docs. 6, 7, and 8). Plaintiff seeks entry of default against Defendants State of
California, California Franchise Tax Board, and California State Agency Insurer. Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has
failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk
must enter the party’s default.” Because a party has no duty to plead until properly served,
sufficient service of process is a prerequisite to entry of default.1
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1), proof of service must be made to the court unless the
defendant waives service. “Except for service by a United States Marshal, proof must be by the
server’s affidavit.”2 The District of Kansas provides a form summons in civil actions, and this
Fisher v. Lynch, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 n.12 (D. Kan. 2008).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1).
form includes an affidavit of proof of service.3 Additionally, the District of Kansas’ Pro Se
Guide instructs plaintiffs to “remember that each defendant gets his or her own summons to be
served on his or her defendant and that one additional summons per defendant will be required to
be returned to the clerk’s office for filing after service has been made on each defendant.”4
Plaintiff did not return the summons or proof of service affidavit to the Clerk of Court.
Instead, Plaintiff submitted three separate documents, which each appear to be United States
Postal Service certified mail receipts indicating that Plaintiff mailed items to three different
California addresses, and that recipients at each address signed for the items.5 These documents,
however, are not affidavits of proof of service, are not affirmed under penalty of perjury, do not
mention a summons or Plaintiff’s Complaint being sent,6 and do not name the individuals or the
titles of the individuals who received service.
Additionally, because Plaintiff brings this action against three apparent state entities of
California, Plaintiff must either (1) deliver a copy of the summons and the Complaint to each
entity’s chief executive officer; or (2) serve a copy of the summons and Complaint in the manner
prescribed by that state’s (California) law for serving a summons on such a defendant.7
California allows for service of summons by mail, but a plaintiff who serves a defendant using
this method must include in its serving papers a form notice and acknowledgment of receipt of
summons—these forms are set forth in California’s Code of Civil Procedure.8 Submitting the
Available at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/summons-in-a-civil-action-ao-440-2/.
Filing Your Lawsuit in Federal Court: A Pro Se Guide, United States District Court District of Kansas, at
9 (2016), available at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/filing-your-lawsuit-in-federal-court-a-pro-se-guide-2/.
Docs. 3, 4, & 5.
Judd v. F.C.C., 276 F.R.D. 1, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2011) (affidavit of service that made no mention of summons
or complaint were not proper proof of service).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2).
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30.
acknowledgment of receipt of summons to the court after service of process constitutes proper
proof of service.9
Plaintiff submitted to the Court neither (1) the affidavit of proof of service contained in
the summons this Court issues; or (2) an acknowledgement of receipt of summons that complies
with California law for service of process. Plaintiff’s documents do not serve as sufficient proof
of service, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). Without proof that Defendants were
properly served, the Court cannot find that Defendants failed to plead or defend. Accordingly,
the Court denies Plaintiff’s applications for clerk’s entry of default.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(3) provides that failure to prove service does not affect the validity of
service, and that a court may permit proof of service to be amended. The Court grants Plaintiff
leave to amend his proof of service to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Upon a
showing of proper service, Plaintiff may file a renewed application for clerk’s entry of default.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Applications for
Clerk’s Entry of Default (Docs. 6, 7, and 8) are denied. Plaintiff may amend his proofs of
service to reflect proper service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 417.10; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (explaining that affidavit of server is required to
establish proof of service).
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?