Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00999-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Los Rios Community College District
Defendant
Don Todd
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON TODD, No. CIV.S-05-0999 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

JOHN DOE 1,

Defendant.

__________________________/

This removal case came before the court on June 24, 2005,

for hearing on Los Rios Community College District’s motion to

dismiss for insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of

process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and

12(b)(5), respectively. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, did not appear

at the hearing. Danielle R. Teeters appeared on behalf of Los Rios

Community College District. Having considered all written materials

submitted in connection with the motion, and after hearing oral

argument, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00999-DFL -DAD Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

As discussed on the record at the hearing, in attempting to

effectuate service of process upon John Doe 1 plaintiff’s agent

delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to a desk at the Los

Rios Community College District office. Plaintiff concedes in his

response to the motion that the summons and complaint were simply

left at the desk and not with any individual. Such attempted service

is insufficient under the federal rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(e)(listing requirements for service upon individuals within a

judicial district of the United States). It also is uncontested that

the summons failed to identify any individual, listing only John Doe

1 in this regard. This also is insufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(a)(“The summons shall be signed by the clerk, bear the seal of the

court, identify the court and the parties, be directed to the

defendant, and state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney

or, if unrepresented, of the plaintiff.”) Therefore, the court finds

that plaintiff’s attempted service of process in this action is

deficient.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Los Rios Community College District’s motion to dismiss

is granted and the service of process attempted in this action is

quashed.

2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including September 16,

2005, which is one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of

removal in this case, to complete service of process and file proof

of such service with the Clerk of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m)(“If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a

Case 2:05-cv-00999-DFL -DAD Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 3
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

1 The weight of authority supports the proposition that the

120-day period runs from the date of removal as opposed to the date

the state court action was filed. See Lawrence v. Hanson, 197 F.

Supp. 2d 533, 538 (W.D. Va. 2002); Eccles v. National Semiconductor

Corp., 10 F. Supp. 2d 514, 520 (D. Md. 1998).

3

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the

court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the

plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant ....”).1

3. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

of dismissal.

DATED: June 24, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\todd0999.oah

Case 2:05-cv-00999-DFL -DAD Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 3