Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01655-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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, Kevin Franken, is proceeding pro se in this action bringing claims against 

Defendant, Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary of the Department of Army (ECF No. 1). For the 

reasons below, the Court directs Defendant to file a response explaining the status of service of 

the complaint.

Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of his complaint on May 24, 2019 (ECF 

No. 1). Plaintiff filed a return of service on October 9, 2019 (ECF No. 5). Despite this return of 

service, Defendant represented in a special appearance filed on February 7, 2020, that service had 

not yet been completed. (ECF No. 14 n.1.) Defendant also represented that defense counsel had 

provided Plaintiff with instructions on how to complete service and had requested Plaintiff to 

inform counsel when service was completed. (Id.) Defendant has not yet filed an answer to the 

1 Ryan D. McCarthy is now the Secretary of the Department of Army and is automatically substituted as a party 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN FRANKEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN D. MCCARTHY,

1 Secretary, 

Department of Army,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01655-AWI-EPG

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO 

FILE A RESPONSE REGARDING THE 

STATUS OF SERVICE OF THE 

COMPLAINT

Case 1:19-cv-01655-AWI-EPG Document 17 Filed 03/04/20 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

2

complaint or other responsive pleading.

The Court, based on Defendant’s representations regarding the lack of service, issued an 

order to show cause (“OSC”) requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to timely serve Defendant as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). (ECF No. 16.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file, no later than February 25, 2020, either: 

(1) a return of service showing that service on Defendant has been completed; or (2) a response to 

the OSC otherwise demonstrating the Plaintiff has completed service on Defendant as required by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or has good cause for failing to complete service. The Court 

warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the OSC may result in the dismissal of this action. 

(Id.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC. 

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the return of service filed by Plaintiff 

(ECF No. 5) and it appears that Plaintiff has attempted to comply with the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Procedure 4(i). Accordingly, the Court will require Defendant to file a response

regarding the status of service. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than March 20, 2020, Defendant shall file a response to 

this order. In his response, which may be made by special appearance, Defendant is directed to 

explain the status of service of the complaint and, if Defendant believes that service still has not 

been properly completed, the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s attempted service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01655-AWI-EPG Document 17 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2