Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01231/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01231-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN NOBLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. CUSTOMS; DOES 1-3,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

[DOC. NO. 7]

I. Introduction

Plaintiff John Nobles, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a personal injury complaint on March 28, 2007, in the

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego [doc. no. 1]. 

The Defendants are the United States Department of Homeland

Security, United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and

three unnamed United States Customs agents, Does 1-3. In his

Complaint, which was removed to federal court, Nobles alleges he is

permanently disabled and disfigured because an unnamed United

States Customs agent denied him medical

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 1 of 12
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 Plaintiff’s Complaint is attached to the Notice of Removal filed

by Defendant. Because the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint are

not consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to the Notice of Removal

using the page numbers provided by the electronic case filing system.

2 It is not clear from the Complaint when the events complained-of

occurred. Although Nobles states that the incident occurred on February

22, 2007, the Complaint reflects that it was signed by Plaintiff on

February 14, 2007. In addition, Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages is also

dated February 14, 2007, and his Proof of Service affidavit was signed on

February 16, 2007. 

2 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

care while he was in custody. (Notice of Removal 4-6.)1 He

asserts that on February 22, 2007,2 a CBP agent who was escorting

Plaintiff refused to follow doctor’s orders, which left Nobles

“injured beyond repair.” (Id. at 6.) He further claims that the

agent signed a form indicating Plaintiff refused treatment, against

Nobles’s will. (Id.)

Defendant learned of this action when a copy of the

Plaintiff’s state court complaint was sent to CBP via certified

mail on May 14, 2007. (Notice of Removal 1; Def.’s Mem. P. & A.

4.) Defendant then removed the case to this Court on July 6, 2007,

because the civil action is against an agency of the United States. 

(Notice of Removal 1); see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1442 (West 2006). Nobles

thereafter submitted a Request for Appointment of Counsel [doc. no.

5], which was filed nunc pro tunc to October 11, 2007. 

Several months later, CBP filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint [doc. no. 7] on February 26, 2008, which was set to be

heard by this Court on April 21, 2008. Plaintiff’s opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was due by April 7, 2008, see S.D.

Cal. Civil L.R. 7.1(e)(2), but as of the date of this Report and

Recommendation, no opposition has been filed. On April 21, 2008,

this Court found the Motion to Dismiss was suitable for resolution 

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 2 of 12
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 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

on the briefs without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7.1(d)(1) [doc. no. 8]. 

Thereafter, on May 2, 2008, this Court issued an Order Denying

Nobles’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [doc. no. 9], finding

there were no “exceptional circumstances” requiring appointment of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). (See Order Den. Pl.’s

Mot. for Appointment of Counsel 7); 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(1) (West

2006).

In support of the Motion to Dismiss, CBP states the following: 

(1) Nobles failed to serve a copy of the summons and Complaint on

the United States Attorney or the Attorney General of the United

States within 120 days of filing the Complaint; and (2) nothing in

the record indicates that good cause exists to excuse Plaintiff’s

failure to effect proper, timely service in this case. (Def.’s

Mem. P. & A. 4.)

For the reasons set forth below, the district court should

GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

II. Discussion

CBP asserts that the case must be dismissed because Plaintiff

did not effect service within the time specified by Rule 4(m). 

(Def.’s Mem. P. & A. 1-2.) Defendant received notice of the

lawsuit while it was pending in state court, but it nevertheless

claims that Nobles failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure because the summons and Complaint were not served on the

United States Attorney’s Office or the Attorney General. (Id. at

2.)

“[S]ervice of process is the means by which a court asserts it

jurisdiction over the person.” SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138 

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 12
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 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir.

1986)). If a defendant is not properly served, the Court has no

power to issue a judgment against it unless the defendant waives

service or otherwise consents to the Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at

1138-39. 

A. NOBLES DID NOT PROPERLY SERVE DEFENDANT IN STATE COURT PRIOR

TO REMOVAL.

Because Nobles filed suit in San Diego Superior Court, he

needed to comply with California law relating to service. 

California requires service of both the complaint and a summons. 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.50 (West 2008). “[F]ulfilling the

statutory requirements of service of process –- i.e., service of a

summons –- is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over a

party.” Renoir v. Redstar Corp., 123 Cal. App. 4th 1145, 1150, 20

Cal. Rptr. 3d 603, 606 (Ct. App. 2004). 

Section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure

states that a copy of the complaint and summons may be served by

mail. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30(a) (West 2008). Pursuant

to this section, service of a summons by mail is deemed complete on

the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is

executed, if such acknowledgment is returned to the sender. Id. §

415.30(c). Service is not complete if the acknowledgment is not

returned. See id. § 415.30(d). 

Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant in accordance with

California law. His Complaint is accompanied by a proof of service

indicating that on February 15, 2007, Nobles mailed a copy of his

“Statement of Damages” to CBP. (Notice of Removal 8.) Although

the proof of service does not indicate that he also sent a copy of

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 4 of 12
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 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

his Complaint to Defendant, CBP’s Notice of Removal states that on

May 14, 2007, it received a copy of the Complaint via certified

mail. (See Notice of Removal 2; Def.’s Mem. P. & A. 4.) In

addition to being sent the Complaint on May 14, 2007, Defendant

also received by mail a “Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt” of

summons. (Notice of Removal 9.)

Even though Nobles mailed CBP a copy of the Complaint via

certified mail, service was incomplete because CBP did not sign or

return the Acknowledgment of Receipt to Plaintiff as required to

complete service under section 415.30 of the California Code of

Civil Procedure. (See Notice of Removal 9); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

415.30. Additionally, there is no evidence that Nobles served, or

attempted to serve, a summons. Notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint is

not sufficient; California law also requires service of a summons

to confer personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, Nobles failed to

properly serve Defendant under California law. 

B. THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERN SERVICE OF PROCESS

AFTER REMOVAL.

Service of process in cases removed to federal court is

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1448, which provides as follows: 

In all cases removed from any State court to any

district court of the United States in which any one or

more of the defendants has not been served with process

or in which the service has not been perfected prior to

removal, or in which process served proves to be

defective, such process or service may be completed or

new process issued in the same manner as in cases

originally filed in such district court.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1448 (West 2006) (emphasis added); see also City of

Clarksdale v. Bellsouth Telecomm., 428 F.3d 206, 214 n.15 (5th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 5 of 12
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 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

2005) (“Title 28 U.S.C. § 1448 permits cured service on a defendant

after removal.”). 

Because Defendant was not properly served under California law

while the case was in state court, Nobles was required to serve the

Defendant pursuant to the federal rules after the case was removed 

to federal court on July 6, 2007.

C. PLAINTIFF DID NOT SERVE THE DEFENDANT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

For a federal court to obtain personal jurisdiction over a

defendant, the Ninth Circuit requires that service of process be in

“substantial compliance” with the service requirements specified by

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jackson v.

Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982). “[N]either actual

notice nor simply naming the defendant in the complaint will

provide personal jurisdiction without ‘substantial compliance with

Rule 4.’” Benny, 799 F.2d at 492 (quoting Jackson, 682 F.2d at

1347). The Plaintiff is responsible for ensuring that the summons

and Complaint are served on each defendant within the time allowed

by Rule 4(m). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1).

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (4)(i)(1) details the

requirements for serving the United States.

(1) To serve the United States, a party must:

(A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the

complaint to the United States attorney for the district

where the action is brought -- or to an assistant United

States attorney or clerical employee whom the United

States attorney designates in a writing filed with the

court clerk -- or

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 6 of 12
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

7 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

(ii) send a copy of each by registered or

certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United

States attorney’s office; [and]

(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified

mail to the Attorney General of the United States at

Washington, D.C.; . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1).

In this case, Plaintiff did not serve the United States

Attorney or the Attorney General of the United States with a copy

of the Complaint and summons after removal. Mary Wiggins is the

sole civil docket clerk authorized to accept service on behalf of

the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California

for matters handled by the civil division of the office. (See

Decl. Of Mary Wiggins ¶¶ 2-3.) In her Declaration [doc. no. 7-3],

she states that on February 26, 2008, she performed a “thorough,

careful, and diligent search of the records, suits, complaints, and

documents” and concluded that the United States Attorney’s Office

had not been served with a summons and the Complaint in this

matter. (Id. ¶ 4.) That same day, Wiggins called the United

States Attorney General’s Office in Washington, D.C., and she was

informed by the responsible clerk there that the United States

Attorney General also had not been served with the summons and

Complaint in this case. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) sets a 120-day time limit

for service.

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after

the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its

own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the

action without prejudice against that defendant or order

that service be made within a specified time. But, if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 7 of 12
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

8 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

must extend the time for service for an appropriate

period.

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

In accordance with this rule, the Ninth Circuit has held, 

“[A]n action against a defendant shall be dismissed without 

prejudice if that defendant is not served with a copy of the

summons and complaint within 120 days after the filing of the

complaint, unless the plaintiff can show good cause why service was

not made within the 120 day period.” Townsel v. County of Contra

Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing Rule 4(j),

which was replaced by Rule 4(m) in 1993). 

Although Rule 4(m) replaced former Rule 4(j) in the 1993

amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, recent court

decisions still look to “good cause” as the starting point for

considering an extension. “The current rule requires a district

court to grant an extension of time if good cause is shown and

permits the district court to grant such an extension even absent

good cause.” Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2003) (citing Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662

(1996)). Similarly, in Efaw v. Williams, the court stated, “Rule

4(m), as amended in 1993, requires a district court to grant an

extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause for the

delay. [citation] Additionally, the rule permits the district

court to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause.” 

Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Mann,

324 F.3d at 1090 n.2)).

Defendant in this action removed the case to federal court on

July 6, 2007. As of April 21, 2008, the date CBP’s Motion to

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 8 of 12
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 Plaintiff’s Complaint lists Does 1-3 as Defendants in addition to

CBP. There is no evidence that these individuals have been identified or

served, so the result is the same for all named and unnamed Defendants.

9 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

Dismiss was filed, over nine months had passed since removal to

federal court. Nothing in the record demonstrates that Plaintiff 

made any effort to serve the summons and Complaint on the Defendant

within the 120-day limit prescribed by Rule 4(m).3 See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m).

D. A TIME EXTENSION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS

NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE FOR FAILING TO EFFECT TIMELY SERVICE.

The time limitation contained in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m) is not absolute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The

Court must extend the 120-day time period for service of process if

the Plaintiff can show “good cause” why service was not made within

that time. Id. Of course, even without good cause, the Court has

the discretion to grant an extension. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324

F.3d at 1090 n.2. Before the 1993 amendment to the rule, the Ninth

Circuit held that an extension of time will not be granted “unless

the plaintiff can show good cause why service was not made within

the 120-day period.” Townsel, 820 F.2d at 320. “At a minimum,

‘good cause’ means excusable neglect. A plaintiff may also be

required to show the following: (a) the party to be served

personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant

would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely

prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.” Boudette v. Barnette,

923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Hart v. United States,

817 F.2d 78, 80-81 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 9 of 12
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

10 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

Prior caselaw is instructive on what constitutes good cause. 

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Townsel, 820 F.2d at 320. 

The court explained, “To hold that complete ignorance of Rule 4[m]

constitutes good cause for untimely service would allow the good

cause exception to swallow the rule.” (Id.) Similarly, a failure

to read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not constitute

good cause for extending the time for service. A.W. Reynolds v.

United States, 782 F.2d 837, 838 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Additionally, a plaintiff’s status as an unrepresented party

does not, by itself, establish good cause. Walker v. Sumner, 14

F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (pro se prisoner did not show good

cause because he failed to prove that he directed the U.S. Marshal

to serve the defendant); Boudette, 923 F.2d at 757 (pro se

plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause); Kersh v. Derozier, 851

F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988) (pro se plaintiff’s ignorance of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) did not excuse compliance with

the rule). 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make it clear that the

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing good cause. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). In this case, the pleadings do not reveal any facts

that permit a finding of good cause for Nobles’s failure to effect

proper, timely service. Furthermore, even though Defendant mailed

a copy of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint to Plaintiff on

February 26, 2008, Nobles has not filed an opposition to CBP’s

Motion. (See Certificate of Service by Mail [doc. no. 7-4].) 

Because Nobles has not met his burden of establishing good causes

to excuse his failure to serve Defendant, an extension of time is

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 10 of 12
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

11 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

not required and should not be granted for Plaintiff to perfect

service of process. 

“Courts have discretion under Rule 4(m), absent a showing of

good cause, to extend the time for service or to dismiss the action

without prejudice.” Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d

507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Petnicelli v. Bohringer &

Ratzinger, Gmbh, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3d Cir. 1995)). When deciding

whether to grant a discretionary extension of time, the Court may

consider factors such as “a statute of limitations bar, prejudice

to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual

service.” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041 (quoting Troxell v. Fedders of N.

Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). 

The facts of this case weigh strongly against granting a

discretionary extension of time. Plaintiff has offered no

explanation for his failure to serve CBP, and there is no evidence

that Defendant attempted to evade service or took any other action

that contributed to Nobles’s delay. Additionally, because the

incident giving rise to this personal injury action allegedly

occurred on February 22, 2007, Nobles’s Complaint will likely not

be barred by the two-year statute of limitations upon dismissal,

giving him an opportunity to re-file the Complaint and effect

proper service on Defendant. (See Notice of Removal 6); Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 335.1 (West 2008) (providing a two-year statute of

limitations for personal injury actions). Finally, Plaintiff’s

failure to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss undermines any

suggestion that the Court should exercise its discretion to grant

an extension of time. 

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 11 of 12
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

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\1983\PRISONER\NOBLES1231\R&R.wpd 12 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

III. Conclusion

Nobles has failed, without good cause, to effectuate proper

service on Defendant within the 120-day time period required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). In addition, the

circumstances required for a time extension are absent. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that CBP’s Motion to Dismiss should

be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint should be DISMISSED without

prejudice.

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United

States District Court judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before August 15, 2008. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed on or before August 29, 2008. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2008 _____________________________

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Hayes

All parties of record

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/15/08 Page 12 of 12