Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01870/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01870-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lonnie Sorrell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1870-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 4(i)(2)(A) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure (Doc. 5). The Court now rules on the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2004, Plaintiff Lonnie Sorrell filed a Complaint in this Court pro se

claiming "Emotional (Mental) trauma, Body harm (the Eyes and Pain to the Head),

Humiliation, and deprivation of a right to enjoyment of life . . . [and] property damages."

(Compl. ¶ 4.) Defendant was served with a copy of the summons and of the Complaint on

December 30, 2004, within the 120 day deadline imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However,

Plaintiff failed to execute service upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona

("U.S. Attorney") or the Attorney General of the United States ("U.S. Attorney General"),

as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)(A). 

Case 2:04-cv-01870-SRB Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Because Plaintiff did not complete service on an agency of the United States as

required, the Court, on May 17, 2005, ordered Plaintiff to submit a status report within ten

days or face dismissal. Plaintiff filed a status report with the Court on May 31, 2005 stating

that he would serve the summons and Complaint on the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney

General within ten days. (Pl.'s Resp. at 1.) Plaintiff then filed notice with the Court that he

had served the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General and included copies of Certified

Mail receipts to each dated June 1, 2005. 

On June 10, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for the failure to serve process

on the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General within 120 days after filing the

Complaint. (Mot. to Dismiss at 1.) Plaintiff responded that his failure to comply with the

rule was "[d]ue to oversight and inexperience." (Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss at

1.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant

has been properly served with process. Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.

1982). Service of process must be completed in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Id. 

When suing an agency of the United States, a copy of the summon and complaint must

be sent to the agency. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)(A). That does not complete service, however.

Under Rule 4(i)(2)(A), the plaintiff must also serve the United States as prescribed in Rule

4(i)(1)

(A) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the

complaint to the United States attorney for the district in which

the action is brought or to an assistant United States attorney or

clerical employee designated by the United States attorney in

writing filed with the clerk of the court or by sending a copy of

the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail

Case 2:04-cv-01870-SRB Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 4
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 -

addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United

States attorney and

(B) by also sending a copy of the summons and of the

complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General

of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)-(B).

Rule 4(m) provides: 

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 motion or on its own initiative after notice to the

plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the

failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an

appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

A district court may extend the time for service of process retroactively after the 120-

day service period has expired. United States v. 2,164 Watches, More or Less Bearing a

Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[D]istrict courts

have broad discretion under General Rule 4(m) to extend time for service even without a

showing of good cause.") (citing In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001)). Federal

courts are instructed to liberally construe the "inartful pleading of pro se litigants," especially

"when evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil procedure." Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.

Ct. 700, 701 (1982); Draper v. Combs, 702 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986)) (other citations

omitted).

Here, Plaintiff did serve Defendant within 120 days of filing his Complaint, but failed

to also serve the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General within that time period. The

Case 2:04-cv-01870-SRB Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Court notified Plaintiff of the problem with service on May 17, 2005 and required Plaintiff

to file a status report within ten days. Plaintiff complied with the Court's Order, filed his

status report, and then provided the Court with copies of certified mail receipts to the U.S.

Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney's office dated June 1, 2005. Defendant has not

asserted that it has been prejudiced in any way by Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the U.S.

Attorney or the U.S. Attorney General. Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion and

deny Defendant's motion to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5).

DATED this 6th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01870-SRB Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 4