Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02539/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02539-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phat The Huynh
Respondent
United States Department of Justice
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR

IMMIGRATION REVIEW,

Petitioner,

 v.

PHAT THE HUYNH,

Respondent.

 /

No. C-07-2539 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

FILE PROOF OF SERVICE AND

PROPOSED ORDER

On May 16, 2007, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why respondent Phat

The Huynh (“Huynh”) “should not be compelled to appear on July 18, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., at

the removal hearing of Phuong Thi Ly (A45-997-108), as directed by the subpoena issued

by Immigration Judge Robert Yeargin, which was served on the respondent on October 28,

2006.” (See Order to Show Cause at 1.) The Court set a hearing on the Order to Show

Cause for June 29, 2007, and granted Huynh leave to file a written response or motion no

later than twenty-one days before the hearing date. 

To date, no response or motion has been filed, and Huynh has submitted no request

for an extension of time to do so. Petitioner, however, has not filed proof of service

demonstrating it has complied with the Court’s order to serve Huynh, no later than 35 days

before the June 29, 2007 hearing, with a certified copy of the order to show cause, the

petition, and the documents filed in support of the petition, in accordance with the

Case 3:07-cv-02539-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/14/07 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

requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Order to Show Cause

at 1-2.) The return of service filed May 22, 2007 states that on May 14, 2007, two days

before the Court issued its order to show cause, copies of the summons and complaint

were delivered to Huynh by certified mail, a method not authorized by Rule 4 or by state

law as incorporated therein. Consequently, such document does not constitute proof of

service of either the petition or the order to show cause.

In addition, petitioner has not submitted a proposed form of order granting the

petition.

Accordingly, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than June 20, 2007,

(1) proof of service or a declaration attesting that service has not been accomplished and

(2) a proposed form of order granting the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02539-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 2