Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00258/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Jamil's claim for negligence was dismissed with prejudice in the Court's prior order. See Order filed on May 31,

2005 at p. 5. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

**E-Filed**

September 12, 2005

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NASIR JAMIL, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:05-cv-258 RS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 

PROPERLY TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS 

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants United States of America (the "United States") and the United States Postal Service

(the "USPS") seek dismissal of the amended complaint for breach of contract filed by plaintiff Nasir Jamil

("Jamil") on the argument that Jamil: (1) failed to serve the summons and amended complaint on defendants,

in accordance with the Court's prior order and the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(i) and (2)

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action.1 Jamil, who is pro se, filed no

opposition to the motion, which was scheduled to be heard by the Court on August 17, 2005. At the

appointed hearing time, Jamil did not appear and, accordingly, an order to show cause as to why the case

should not be dismissed was issued. In response, Jamil appeared in Court as ordered on August 31, 2005

Case 5:05-cv-00258-RS Document 20 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Although not alleged in Jamil's complaint, the USPS acknowledges that Jamil's appeal was denied on December

28, 2004. See Declaration by Marguerite Breault.

2

and stated that he believes he has exhausted all administrative remedies and that the filing of any further

appeals by him would prove futile. Jamil did not address defendants' contention of inadequate service. 

Based on all papers filed to date, the oral argument of the parties, and the record in this action, the

motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice for failure to serve defendants. As a result, the Court need

not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

II. BACKGROUND

The factual background of this action is set forth in the Court's order of May 31, 2005 and the

amended complaint does not allege different facts, with the exception of new averments under the heading,

"Exhausted all administrative remedies." See Amended Complaint at p. 1. Jamil alleges that on October

23, 2004, he filed a claim against the USPS for the loss of his laptop. Id. at ¶ 1. That claim was denied on

November 11, 2004, and appealed by Jamil on November 16, 2004. Id. In addition, Jamil filed a second

appeal on November 17, 2004. Id. at ¶ 3. He then filed a third appeal, this time directed to the USPS

headquarters, on December 31, 2004, presumably in response to the denial of his prior appeals on

December 28, 2004.2 Id. at ¶ 4. Based on this sequence of events, Jamil contends that he has properly

pled the exhaustion of all administrative remedies.

Defendants argue, however, that Jamil did not exhaust his remedies prior to the time that he filed his

original complaint in state court on December 14, 2004, since he admittedly filed a final appeal on

December 31, 2004. Moreover, they note that the record indicates that Jamil has an outstanding appeal to

which he has not yet received a response, thereby contending that such fact also supports the dismissal of

this action. Even assuming that exhaustion has been completed, defendants aver that they have not been

properly served with the summons and amended complaint in this case.

\\\

III. STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that service of the summons and complaint must be

made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, unless the court for good cause

Case 5:05-cv-00258-RS Document 20 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

shown extends the time for an appropriate period. Failure to comply with Rule 4 may result in the dismissal

without prejudice of the complaint. Id. Rule 4(i) proscribes the manner in which a plaintiff must serve the

United States and any of its agencies, corporations, officers, or employees.

IV. DISCUSSION

As noted, defendants move to dismiss Jamil's amended complaint on the basis that the proof of

service fails to show that service was effected upon them in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

4(i). Although Jamil contends that service was properly effected, the proof of service submitted to the

Court shows only that, on April 29, 2005, a copy of an amended complaint was mailed to Assistant United

States Attorney Mark St. Angelo. There is no proof of service indicating that Mr. St. Angelo was

subsequently served with the present amended complaint, nor does the submitted proof of service comply

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(i)(1)(A) and (B). As a result, it does not appear that service

was properly effected on the defendants. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4, the Court dismisses

this case without prejudice based upon Jamil's failure to serve defendants in the proper manner. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, defendants' motion to dismiss Jamil's amended complaint is

granted. Jamil may, assuming his administrative appeal is denied, refile this action and properly serve the

defendants with a new summons and complaint. The case management conference set for September 28,

2005 is, therefore, vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/12/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00258-RS Document 20 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Mark St. Angelo mark.st.angelo@usdoj.gov 

Joann M. Swanson joann.swanson@usdoj.gov 

Nasir Jamil

235 Erie Way #B

Campbell, CA 95008

Dated: 9/12/05 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:___DM____________________

Chambers

Case 5:05-cv-00258-RS Document 20 Filed 09/12/05 Page 4 of 4