Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01815/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01815-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN L LUCIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01815-JD 

ORDER RE SERVICE

The complaint in this Social Security action was filed on April 22, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. The 

clerk of the court issued a summons to the defendants on April 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 9. However, 

almost six months later, no docket entry showed that defendants were served. Accordingly, on 

October 20, 2015, the Court ordered plaintiff to serve defendants, or show good cause for failing

to do so, by November 4, 2015. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that “service was 

perfected on May 12, 2015,” but provided no proof of service. Dkt. No. 11. The Court 

specifically directed plaintiff to file proof of service, as it should have done pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)(1). Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff filed a “Proof of Service by Mail” on 

October 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 13.

Plaintiff’s “Proof of Service” reveals that plaintiff’s ostensible service was defective: the 

plaintiff’s and Social Security Commissioner’s names are misspelled on the summons, and the 

copy of the summons purportedly served was unsigned. Dkt. No. 13-1 at 7; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(a)(1) (“A summons must: (A) name the court and the parties; (B) be directed to the defendant; 

... (F) be signed by the clerk; and (G) bear the court’s seal.”) Also, the caption of the complaint is 

set up for the “Eastern District of California,” which is the wrong court. Dkt. No. 13-1 at 3.

Even if these errors had slipped through the cracks six months ago, the Court does not 

understand why plaintiff’s counsel did not pursue the status of service and the case generally after 

Case 3:15-cv-01815-JD Document 14 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

seeing that the complaint went unanswered by the United States for five months. To the extent 

plaintiff wishes to maintain this action, he must properly serve the defendants under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4 and Civil Local Rule 4-2 by November 23, 2015. Plaintiff has already been 

warned twice that the Court will dismiss the case if service was not perfected, and this is a last 

warning. The case will be dismissed if plaintiff does not file valid proof of proper service under 

governing law by November 23, 2015. 

In addition, plaintiff’s counsel is directed to review and comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, especially Civil Local Rule 11-4. If plaintiff’s

future filings fail to comply with this order, or any of the applicable procedural rules, the Court 

may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and sanction plaintiff’s counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a 

defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”)

Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to provide a copy of this order to plaintiff and certify to the 

court by November 23, 2015 that he has done so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01815-JD Document 14 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2