Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02060/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02060-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE N. HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2060 DFL EFB PS

vs.

MICHAEL W. WYNNE,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the magistrate judge

under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The case was before the

undersigned on March 14, 2007, for hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Assistant United States Attorney Bobbie J. Montoya appeared as defense

counsel and plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action, originally filed in the Northern District of California, was transferred to this

district on September 15, 2006. The underlying complaint, filed June 27, 2006, concerns 

termination of plaintiff’s employment at Beale Air Force Base in 2003. Plaintiff alleges

employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, based on

alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. The United States

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), issued a right to sue letter on May 24,

2006, after finding that plaintiff could “not successfully make a claim for disability

discrimination.” Defendant has moved to dismiss the action pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)

for plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) and 4(m).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Service of Process

Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a motion to dismiss for

insufficiency of service of process. If service of process is not accomplished within 120 days of

filing an action, a court is empowered to dismiss the action. English v. Krubsack, 371 F. Supp.

2d 1198, 1201 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Service of process

upon the United States and its agencies is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). To serve an agency

of the United States, a plaintiff must serve a copy of the complaint and summons on the agency,

the Unites States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought, and the United States

Attorney General in Washington, D.C. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)(A); 4(i)(1). 

Such service must be completed within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). If plaintiff fails to timely effect service of process, the court may either dismiss the

action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct such service to be effected within a

specified time. Id. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the

time for service. Id. Absent a showing of good cause, it is within the court’s discretion whether

or not to extend time or dismiss the action without prejudice. United States v. 2,164 Watches,

366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004).

B. Application

In the present case, plaintiff did effect timely service of process on the appropriate

agency (United States Air Force). However, he has not served, nor attempted to serve, either the

United States Attorney General or the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of

////

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 Neither did plaintiff attempt to serve the United States Attorney for the Northern

District of California, where he originally filed this action. 

2

 Plaintiff’s opposition provided in part, “Without the assistance of an attorney I felt it

was useless to continue this struggle because I have become convinced that the outcome will be

in my favor. After I received this last order of the court I decided I surely could not win without

trying.” 

3

California, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i).1

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause why the court should grant him additional

time to effect service of process on defendant. In fact, his actions demonstrate little interest in

the prosecution of this action. When the case was transferred to this district on September 15,

2006, a scheduling order issued directing the parties to file status reports by January 3, 2007. 

Plaintiff did not file a status report or otherwise respond to that order. The court then ordered

plaintiff on January 11, 2007, to file a status report within ten days of that order. Again, plaintiff

did not file a status report or otherwise respond to the court’s order. These failures to comply

with the court’s orders are, themselves, independent grounds for dismissal. E.D. Cal. L.R. 11-

110.

Moreover, in violation of the court’s local rules plaintiff failed to timely oppose

defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was filed on January 17, 2007, and noticed for hearing on

February 21, 2007. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(c). The court therefore issued an order directing

plaintiff to file an opposition no later than February 28, 2007, and re-setting the hearing for

March 24, 2007. Plaintiff did respond to that order, but did so by filing a one-page document

that offered no relevant or substantive response to defendant’s motion.2

 At the hearing, plaintiff

failed to offer any reason other than his pro se status for his failure to properly complete service

of process as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i), or for his failures to otherwise respond to the court

orders. 

A plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse untimely service or the violation of court

orders. See, e.g., Hammad v. Tate Access Floors, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 524, 528 (D. Md. 1999);

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 5
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

3

 Plaintiff will not be able to re-file his suit without running afoul of the he 90-day

statute of limitations period set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). See Mann v. Am. Airlines,

324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, “[t]he district court’s discretion is not diminished

when the statute of limitations would bar re-filing of the suit if the district court decided to

dismiss the case instead of grant an extension.” Mann, 324 F.3d at1090.

4

see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that

procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by

those who proceed without counsel.”). Plaintiff has made no effort to establish good cause

justifying an extension of time. Neither did plaintiff attempt to properly complete service at any

time following the filing of defendant’s motion, which made it abundantly clear what was

required under the Rules. The court recognizes that the relevant statute of limitations may bar

plaintiff from re-filing his suit.3

 Nonetheless, the court finds plaintiff’s continual noncompliance with court orders and his failure to diligently prosecute this action do not warrant an

extension of time to effect service. Plaintiff has neither asked for such an extension nor has he

demonstrated good cause therefor. As of the date of the March 14, 2007 hearing, 260 days had

passed since the complaint was filed – more than twice the amount of time allowed under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, defendant’s motion must be granted. 

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 10, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 5 of 5