Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01907-2/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

ALISON HELEN FAIRCHILD,

Plaintiff,

v.

TONEY WAYNE MEREDITH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-1907-DC-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed the instant action on July 11, 

2024, and paid the filing fee.1 (ECF No. 1.) On July 12, 2024, the Clerk’s Office issued summons 

to serve the defendants. (ECF No. 5.)

By order dated December 6, 2024, plaintiff was cautioned that pursuant to Rule 4 of the 

Rule of Civil Procedure:

If a defendant is not served within 90 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 must 

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The order served to plaintiff on December 6, 2024, further informed 

1 Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this matter was referred to the undersigned under 

Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Case 2:24-cv-01907-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/25 Page 1 of 5
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

plaintiff the record did not reflect any proper service attempts and that plaintiff’s complaint was 

on the verge of being dismissed for failure to serve. Plaintiff was ordered to file a statement with 

the court within 14 days indicating the status of service and any good cause reasons why 

defendants had not been served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff was

cautioned that failure to respond to the order would result in a recommendation that this case be 

dismissed. 

Plaintiff has not filed a statement indicating the status of service or otherwise responded to 

the court’s December 6, 2024 order. However, further review of the docket reflects a certificate of 

service was filed on October 11, 2024, indicating copies of the complaint, summons, and/or

waiver of summons forms were sent to several of the defendants by Certified Priority Mail, with 

return receipts received. (ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the court examines whether plaintiff has 

demonstrated proper service of process on any defendants based on the information in the 

previously filed certificate of service.

A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been 

served properly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized 

Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(e), an 

individual within a judicial district of the United States may be served by:

(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought 

in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is 

located or where service is made; or

(2) doing any of the following:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the 

individual personally;

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place 

of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides 

there; or

(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment 

or by law to receive service of process.

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

A summons may be served by mail under California law, but it must be mailed with two 

copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30(b), and with 

Case 2:24-cv-01907-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 5
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

a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30.

Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of § 415.30 because there is no indication the 

defendants were provided with a postage prepaid return envelope and the acknowledgment form, 

or that any defendant returned the form.

Based on the information in the certificate of service, plaintiff has not effected service 

under any method set forth in Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, the 

certificate of service indicates plaintiff requested waivers of service by certified mail. (ECF No. 9 

at 2-6.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) permits a plaintiff to avoid the costs of personal 

service by providing a defendant with written notice, through first-class mail or other reliable 

means, of the commencement of an action and with a request that defendant waive service of 

summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Such a notification must also be addressed to the individual 

defendant, state the court where the complaint was filed, show when the request was sent, and 

include a copy of the complaint, two copies of a waiver form, and a prepaid method for returning 

the form. Id. The plaintiff shall “give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the 

request was sent ... to return the waiver.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(F).

Once notified, a defendant “has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the 

summons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Accordingly, if the defendant does not sign and return the 

waiver, absent good cause, “the court must impose on the defendant... the expenses later incurred 

in making service[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

Here, as set forth, the certificate of service does not indicate any defendant was provided 

with a prepaid method for returning the form. In addition, the certificate of service is unclear as to 

whether a summons (AO-440) for each defendant, or a waiver of summons form (AO-399) for 

each defendant, or both, were provided.2 Finally, there is no indication that any defendant signed 

and returned the waiver. Thus, the certificate of service does not establish that plaintiff satisfied 

2 The certificate of service indicates copies of “the complaint and United States Court waiver of 

summons form (AO-440)” were served on several of the defendants by certified mail. (ECF No. 9 

at 2-6.)

Case 2:24-cv-01907-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/25 Page 3 of 5
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

the procedure set forth in Rule 4(d) for waiver of service. There is, further, no indication plaintiff 

attempted service in any other manner.

Accordingly, plaintiff has not met the burden to prove service of process or waiver of 

service of process. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). “Rule 4 is a 

flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the 

complaint.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted). 

However, even under a liberal construction, “neither 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 v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 

1982)).

A court may dismiss claims against a defendant who is not served “within 90 days after 

the complaint is filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Ninth Circuit has explained that courts “are 

generally more solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants, particularly when technical 

jurisdictional requirements are involved.” Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 448 n.2 (9th Cir. 

1984). In Borzeka, the Ninth Circuit set forth a four-factor test governing when Rule 4 service 

requirements may be excused in the context of a motion to dismiss a litigant’s complaint for 

failure to properly effectuate service—if “(a) the party that had to be served personally received 

actual notice, (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice from the defect in service, (c) there is a 

justifiable excuse for the failure to serve properly, and (d) the plaintiff would be severely 

prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.” 739 F.2d at 448.

On the record before the court, there appears no justifiable excuse for the failure to serve, 

and no indication plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if her complaint were dismissed for 

failure to serve. However, the undersigned will not recommend dismissal at this juncture. 

Considering plaintiff’s pro se status and attempts to obtain waivers of service, there is good cause 

to extend the service deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Service of the summons and complaint

must be made, or proper waiver of service demonstrated, within 45 days. Plaintiff is informed that 

pro se status itself is not sufficient to show good cause for failure to serve. Townsel v. Contra 

Costa County, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that ignorance of or confusion about 

Case 2:24-cv-01907-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/25 Page 4 of 5
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

service requirements does not constitute “good cause” for failure to serve).

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Sua sponte, the court extends the time for plaintiff to serve the defendants under 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; service of the summons and complaint must be 

made, or proper waiver of service demonstrated, within 45 days from the date of this order.

2. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to effectuate service of process within this time or 

to make a detailed showing of good cause for a further extension of time will result in a 

recommendation that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for failure to serve.

Dated: January 2, 2025

8, fair24cv1907.4m.2

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01907-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/25 Page 5 of 5