Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-07236/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-07236-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ, ) NO. CV 15-3063-DSF (AGR)

 )

 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIGRAN GUMUSHYAN, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) )

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on

file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to

which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge except as stated below.

Plaintiff contends that he served the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)

through Tigran Gumushyan, Operations Manager at the SSA office at 11500 West

Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles.

Plaintiff argues, however, that it was defendant Gumushyan’s responsibility to

serve the summons and complaint on the United States Attorney and presumably,

although he does not expressly say so, the Attorney General of the United States

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(A)-(B). Plaintiff is incorrect. “The plaintiff is

responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by

Case 3:16-cv-07236-LB Document 44 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff states that he has not sued the

SSA and has sued only its employees for Bivens1

 claims. (Objections at 6.) “To

serve a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or

omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States’ behalf

(whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in an individual capacity, a party

must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee . . . .” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(i)(C)(3) (emphasis added). Service on the United States, in turn,

requires that the plaintiff serve the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central

District of California in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(i)(1)(A) and serve the

Attorney General of the United States in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(i)(1)(B). 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(C)(3).

Nowhere does Rule 4 impose any obligation on a defendant federal employee

to serve the summons and complaint on the United States Attorney’s Office or the

Attorney General of the United States on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff cites no authority

for his position.

IT IS ORDERED, on the Court’s own motion, that Plaintiff’s time for completing

service of the summons and complaint on the United States Attorney’s Office for the

Central District and the Attorney General of the United States shall be extended to 30

days after the entry of this order. If Plaintiff fails to timely complete service of process

and file a proof of service within 30 days after entry of this order, his complaint

against the federal defendants is subject to dismissal without prejudice pursuant to

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

 3/10/15

DATED: DALE S. FISCHER

 United States District Judge

 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

Case 3:16-cv-07236-LB Document 44 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2