Kriegel v. USDA et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO TIMELY PERFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS - For all of these reasons, and after notice to the Plaintiff, this case is again dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely perfect service of process within the time limit required by Rule 4. Motions terminated: 15 MOTION for Reconsideration re 10 Order of Dismissal (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/16/2017) (vls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
LAURANCE KRIEGEL, pTo
Se,
$
$
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CNIL ACTION CAUSE NUMBER
$
$
2:17-CY-079-I
$
USDA, USDA-FSA,
$
$
DEFENDANTS.
$
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
OF PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO TIMELY PERFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS
This suit was filed in federal court on March T4,2017 . In essence, Plaintiff seeks in this suit
a court order for him to be paid by the Department of Agriculture sufficient money for his
agricultural crops to allow a "farmer citizen" to "have a standard of living similar to other
businesses' and employment." Plaintiff defines that level of income as "parity."
Because the record did not show that the Defendant has been properly served in this case
within the time permitted by the federal rules of civil procedure, that summons had been requested
or issued, and no answer had been filed, the Court pursuant to Local Rule 4.1 (providing that proof
of service or of waiver of service must be made by filing with the clerk a copy of the summons,
affidavit of service, andlor executed waiver of service) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
(providing that if service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120
days after the
filing of the complaint, the court upon its own initiative, after notice to the plaintiff,
must dismiss the action without prejudice), ordered Plaintiff on September 9,2017, to show cause
within fifteen (15) days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to timely perfect service
of process upon the Defendants. Plaintiff was expressly cautioned that if he did not timely show
Page 1 of
3
cause,
all of his causes of action against the Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice and
without further notice to the Plaintiff.
After the Court's show cause order, on September 72,2017, Plaintiff requested and was
issued summonses for the Defendants. In the interests of justice, the Court waited an additional
seven days after the fifteen day deadline had passed to dismiss this case without prejudice, in order
to allow additional time for the Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to provide proof of proper service pursuant to Rule 4 of the federal rules and 4.1 of the local
rules. No response to the Court's order having been filed by the Plaintiff, on September 29,2077
this case was ordered dismissed without prejudice for failure to show cause for the delay in
perfecting service of process.
On October 3,2017, after this case had already been dismissed, Plaintiff frled four retums
of service stating that he had personally mailed the summonses and copies of the complaint via
certified mail service to both of the Defendants, to the U.S. Attorney General, and to the U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. On October ll,2017 , Plaintiff next filed
a
"writ for the
pleading to remain in court to enact parity" requesting reinstatement of this case and specifically
requesting "a hearing to discuss the facts with the Court and a profitable loan rate that covers Cost
of Production, that being Parity and/or Parity Payments." The Court construes this as Plaintiff
s
untimely response to the show cause order.
The serving party bears the burden of proving its validity and to show good cause for failure
totimelyeffectproperservice. Carimiv.RoyalCarribeanCruiseLine,lnc.,g5gF.2dl344(5thCir.
1992);Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., J76F.2d1304,1305 (5th Cir. 1985); Aetna
Business Credit, Inc. v. (Jniversal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434,435 (5th Cir.
Unit
A Jan. 1981). A plaintiff must comply with the service requirements of the federal rules. Norlock
v. City of Garland,768F.2d654,656 (5th Cir. 1985). A litigant's pro se status does not excuse him
Page 2 of
3
from compliance with the federal rules ofprocedure. United State v. Jenkins,780F.2d518, 520 (5th
Cir. 1986).
See also Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 4(i) (service requirement for suits against agencies of the
federal government; requiring service of the sulnmons and complaint by registered or certified mail
to the named agency sued, the Attorney General, and the U.S. Attorney).
Federal Rule 4(c)(2) provides that an persons who is at least 18 years old and not a party to
the case may serve a summons and complaint. As a party to the action Plaintiff Kriegel was not
authorized to serve process.
Id.
The record provides no indication that any person authorized by
either state or federal law to serve process was involved in Plaintiff
s
attempted service via certified
mail. See Gilliamv. County of Tarrant, et a1.,94 Fed. Appx. 230,2004 WL 816394 (5th Cit.
2004)(citing Delta Steamships Lines, Inc. v. Albano,768
F
.2d 728,730 (5th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff
therefore has not shown that he has timely perfected service ofprocess within the time limits of Rule
4, has not explained why he failed to do so, and has not shown good cause for his failure to do so.
For all of these reasons, and after notice to the Plaintiff, this case is again dismissed without
prejudice for failure to timely perfect service of process within the time limit required by Rule 4.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed this
the
f'day
of octo ber,20l7.
/ (
SENIOR LINITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of
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?