Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00852/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00852-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John W. Lynch, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-0852-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Strike Unlawful Order By the Court and Grant Plaintiff

Judgment and Relief.” Dkt. #19. Defendant has not replied. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s

motion.

A. Analysis.

Plaintiff’s motion expresses disagreement with earlier Court orders and requests

default judgment against Defendants. First, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s order is “not

signed nor logged.” Dkt. #19 at 1. Plaintiff seems to be referring to one of two orders (Dkt.

##16, 18) that he attached to his motions. Both of these orders were signed by the Court and

entered in its docket. 

Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court’s order of May 2, 2006 directing Plaintiff to

serve Defendant within 60 days or have the case dismissed. Dkt. #19 at 2. There, the Court

noted that Plaintiff had mailed the complaint to various individual defendants, but had not

complied with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #16 at 1. Plaintiff argues

Case 2:05-cv-00852-DGC Document 32 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

that he is entitled to default judgment because Defendants did not respond to his complaint,

even though he failed to serve Defendants properly. Defendants need not take action in this

case until properly served, nor was the Court’s order “unlawful.” See Dkt. #19 at 1-2. 

The Court’s order of December 15, 2006 confirmed that Plaintiff had still not served

the Defendants in accordance with Rule 4 and directed him to complete the service within

60 days. Dkt. #25. This order rendered Plaintiff’s motion largely moot by explaining why

Plaintiff had not effected proper service. 

Plaintiff accuses the Court of engaging in ex parte communications with Defendants

and demands, under the Freedom of Information Act, the contents of any such

communications between the Court and the Defendants. The Court has had no ex parte

communications with Defendants.

IT IS ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Unlawful Order By the Court and Grant Plaintiff

Judgment and Relief” (Dkt. #19) is denied. 

DATED this 5th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00852-DGC Document 32 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2