Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02130/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02130-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MARTINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER

In November 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint and paid the required filing fee. None of 

the defendants have appeared, and plaintiff initially failed to file proofs of service demonstrating 

that defendants were properly served. Accordingly, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to effect proper service of process within the time 

prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF No. 8. Plaintiff responded to that order, 

stating that “Defendant was served on June 30th 2022 by a process server.” ECF No. 9. He also 

submitted a proof of service for one of the defendants, City of Sacramento, reflecting that a copy 

of the summons and complaint was delivered to the Sacramento City Attorney’s Office on June 3, 

2023. Id. at 2. 

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s filing indicates that defendant City of Sacramento was not 

properly served. Under Federal Rule 4(j)(2)(A), a governmental organization can be served by

“delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer.” 

Case 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 06/15/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Alternatively, service can be effected in the manner prescribed by California law. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(j)(2)(B). Under California law, a government agency can be served by delivering a 

copy of the summons and complaint to “the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other 

head of its governing body” or by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to 

be served, with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt of Summons and 

Complaint (the “Acknowledgment”) and a pre-paid return envelope. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 

415.30, 416.50.

The proof of service plaintiff filed states the process server served “Office of the City 

Attorney” at 915 I Street 4th Floor on June 2, 2022. ECF No. 9 at 2. However, that manner of 

serve is improper; it does not identify the specific individual who accepted service, and it is does 

not indicate that the complaint and summons were delivered to a person with authority to accept 

service on behalf of defendant City of Sacramento. See Rockwell v. Tuolumne Cnty., California, 

No. 1:22-CV-00392-JLT-EPG, 2022 WL 2752391, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2022) (finding that 

the plaintiff had not effectuated proper service since the proofs of service did not “describe the 

address where service occurred on Defendants, and the descriptions of the individuals served are 

unclear as to their identities, positions, and authority to accept service on behalf of Defendants”);

Bratton v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. CV 09-2049 PSG (SSx), 2009 WL 10675941, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. July 28, 2009) (finding that proof of service was deficient because it did not list title of 

person served). As for the three individual defendants, plaintiff has not shown that he even 

attempted to serve them. 

Given that plaintiff attempted to serve at least one defendant, and considering his pro se 

status, I will grant him a brief extension of time to properly serve each defendant and file with the 

court the proofs of service as required by Rule 4(l).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to properly serve each defendant and file with the court 

proofs of service demonstrating that defendants were properly served.

Case 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 06/15/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect proper 

services of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 06/15/23 Page 3 of 3