Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02625/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02625-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

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

Randy S. Roberts, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Francis J. Harvey, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2625-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Randy S. Roberts' Motion for Summary

Judgment and Declaratory Relief (Dkt.9) and Motion for Compensatory Damages Hearing

Due to Wrongful Discharge (Dkt. 10). As explained below, the Court will deny both motions

and require Plaintiff to complete service in accordance with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure ("Federal Rules"). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Randy S. Roberts ("Roberts") commenced this action on November 2, 2006,

by filing a Complaint in this Court. Roberts, appearing pro se, seeks judicial review of the

Army Board for Correction of Military Records' ("ABCMR") refusal to make requested

changes in his military records. Roberts' Complaint names former Army Secretary Francis

J. Harvey ("Harvey") as the sole Defendant; however, he does not specify the capacity in

which Harvey is being sued. Roberts' failure to state the capacity in which Harvey is being

sued creates certain procedural problems that will be explained in great detail below;

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 16 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 6
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 -

presumably, based on the allegations of the Complaint, Harvey is not being sued solely in

an individual capacity since this action arises from the adverse decisions of the ABCMR. 

 Since filing his Complaint, Roberts has filed numerous documents with the Court. On

November 14, 2006, Roberts notified the Court that service had been effected upon Harvey

and the ABCMR via certified mail. (Dkt. 3) On December 27, 2006, Roberts notified the

Court, pursuant to the Standard Civil Track Order, that he was prepared for a Preliminary

Pretrial Conference. Additionally, on February 12, 2007, Roberts filed an Open Letter to the

Judge Regarding Court Order Violation, stating inter alia that he was personally confused

by certain provisions of the Standard Civil Track Order. (Dkt. 11) Lastly, Roberts filed the

two motions pending before the Court: (1) the Motion for Summary and (2) the Motion for

Hearing Re: Compensatory Damages Due to Wrongful Discharge. 

DISCUSSION

Although Roberts has diligently pursued this action, he did not complete service of

process in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules. Moreover, Roberts' Complaint,

Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Hearing Re: Compensatory Damages Due

to Wrongful Discharge, do not comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona ("Local Rules"). The Court will address each of

these deficiencies in turn. 

A. Service of Process

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules sets forth the procedure for notifying defendants that a

civil lawsuit has been filed against them. Based on Roberts' allegations, the present

action involves an officer of the United States being sued for acts occurring in connection

with the performance of duties on behalf of the United States. Thus, Plaintiff was

required to comply with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules. It is unclear, however, whether

Harvey is being sued solely in his official capacity or in both his individual and official

capacity. This omission is critical because the status in which Harvey is being sued

controls which provisions of Rule 4(i) must be satisfied to complete service. Regardless,

where an officer of the United States is being sued solely in an official capacity, or where

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 16 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 6
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 -

officer is being sued in an individual capacity for acts of omissions occurring in

connection with performance of his duties on behalf of the United States, the United

States must be served in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(i)(1). Rule 4(i)(1) provides, in

relevant part, that service upon the United States shall be effected: 

(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 a 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 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 complain by

registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at

Washington, District of Columbia, and 

(C)in any action attacking the validity of an order of an officer of agency of

the United States not made a party. by also sending a copy of the summons

and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the officer of agency. 

 Fed. R. Civ. P.

In the present action, Roberts has not served the United States Attorney for the

District of Arizona or the Attorney General of the United States within 120 days as

required by the Federal Rules. However, the Court finds that a dismissal of the

Complaint would be improper at this time under the Federal Rules. Roberts has not been

given notice of a possible dismissal pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules, which

provides that the court may not dismiss the complaint on its own initiative without

providing such notice to plaintiff. Moreover, Roberts may be entitled to cure his

defective service as a matter of right. For example, in an action governed by Rule

4(i)(2)(B), the court must give a plaintiff reasonable time to cure a failure to serve process

if the plaintiff has already served an officer of the United States in an individual capacity.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3)(B). Here, Roberts has presented some evidence indicating that he

attempted to serve process upon Harvey at his office in Washington D.C. Therefore, in

light of the present circumstances, the Court finds that the best course of action is to grant

Roberts an additional time to serve process in compliance with the Federal Rules. The

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 16 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 The Local Rules may be found at the District of Arizona's website:

www.azd.uscourts.gov

- 4 -

Court also warns Roberts that his Complaint may be dismissed without prejudice if he

does not complete service in the time prescribed by this Order.

B. Dismissal of the Pending Motions and Note Regarding "Open Letters"

i. Motion for Summary (and Declaratory) Judgment

Having failed to properly effect service upon the United States as required by Rule

4(i), the Court finds that it would be premature at this stage in the litigation to consider

Roberts' Motion for Summary (and Declaratory) Judgment. (Dkt. 7) Moreover, Roberts'

Motion for Summary (and Declaratory) Judgment do not comply with Rule 7.1 and Rule

56.1 of the Local Rules.1

 The Court advises Roberts to consult the Local Rules in their

entirety, paying particular attention to Rule 7.1(b), which provides in part:

The body of all documents shall be typed double-spaced and shall not exceed

28 lines per page; they shall not be single-spaced except for footnotes and

indented quotations. All pleadings, motions and other original papers shall be

in a fixed-pitch type size no smaller than ten (10) pitch (10 letters per inch) or

in a proportional font size no smaller than 13 point. Pages of the document

must be numbered.

LRCiv. 7.1(b). In addition to the universal requirements of Rule 7.1(b), motions for

summary judgment have additional requirements under the Local Rules. Rule 56.1

provides in relevant part:

Any party filing a motion for summary judgment shall file a statement,

separate from the motion and memorandum of law, setting forth each

material fact on which the party relies in support of the motion. Each

material fact shall be set forth in a separately numbered paragraph and shall

refer to a specific admissible portion of the record where the fact finds

support (for example, affidavit, deposition, discovery response, etc.). A

failure to submit a separate statement of facts in this form may constitute

grounds for the denial of

the motion.

LRCiv. 56.1(a)(emphasis added). Navigating the complexities of civil litigation can be a

difficult task for pro se litigants. Nonetheless, all litigants appearing before this Court

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 16 Filed 06/04/07 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

must adhere to both the Federal and Local Rules of Practice. Therefore, in light of the

procedural posture of this action and Roberts' failure to adhere to the Local Rules

governing motion practice, the Court will dismiss the Motion for Summary (and

Declaratory) Judgment without prejudice.

i. Motion for Hearing Re: Compensatory Damages

The Court will deny Roberts' Motion for Hearing Re: Compensatory Damages Due

to Wrongful Discharge because it is an improper request. The Court does not make

declaratory judgments regarding proof of mailing. Moreover, since this document

appears to have been submitted solely for the purpose of providing the Court with notice

of service, it is not a "motion" and should not have been styled as such. Therefore, this

motion will be denied with prejudice. 

iii. Open Letter to the Judge Regarding Court Order Violation

The Court will not consider "open letters." Roberts is encouraged to consult a

lawyer, legal services agency, or a law library if he is confused about certain legal

procedures. Morever, numerous legal aid groups in the area, such as the Volunteer

Lawyers Program of Maricopa County, can be found on the internet, which can be

accessed for free at most, if not all, of the many branches of the Phoenix Public Library. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Roberts must complete service of process in

accordance with the Federal Rules by August 3, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Roberts is hereby given notice that a failure to

complete service in accordance with the Federal Rules may result in the dismissal of the

Complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Roberts' Motion for Summary Judgment and

Declaratory Relief (Dkt.9) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Roberts' Motion for Compensatory Damages

Hearing Due to Wrongful Discharge (Dkt. 10) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 16 Filed 06/04/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

//

//

//

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this

Order, as a matter of courtesy, to the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of

Arizona at the following address:

Two Renaissance Square

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

DATED this 1st day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02625-SMM Document 16 Filed 06/04/07 Page 6 of 6