Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00273/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Johanns
Defendant
Jesse Van Myers
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

27

28 1

 This case was filed November 7, 2006.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesse Van Myers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael Johanns, United States

Department of Agriculture, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-273–PHX-JAT

ORDER

On June 20, 2007, this Court held a show cause hearing for Plaintiff to show cause

why this case should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to serve the Defendant within

the time limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff appeared at the

hearing and received an extension of time to serve. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a

proper return of service by August 20, 2007.1

On August 20, 2007, the Clerk's office received, by mail, a summons and a copy of

the complaint. Presumably, Plaintiff sent this so the US Marshal could serve the defendant.

First, the Court finds that delivering documents to the Clerk's office on the deadline to have

service completed is insufficient to comply with this Court's order of June 20, 2007, which

required that proof of service be filed by August 20, 2007. Second, even if the Court gave

Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt that all he had to do was give the documents to the Marshal

Case 2:07-cv-00273-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/06/07 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 -

by the deadline for completing service, Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient documents to

complete service. Specifically, Plaintiff is attempting to serve Michael Johanns of the United

States Department of Agriculture. However, Plaintiff only sent a summons for Mr. Johanns,

which is insufficient to accomplish service on a member of the Federal Government. See

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(i). Therefore, even if the Court construed Plaintiff's return of these

documents as timely, which the Court does not, Plaintiff still did not accomplish service

within the deadline. 

Plaintiff has already been given one extension of time to serve. Plaintiff has not

sought any further extensions. The Court made clear at the hearing that Plaintiff was

required to complete service by August 20, 2007. Plaintiff having failed to comply with a

Court order,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failing to timely

serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), for failing to properly serve under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) and for failing to comply with a Court order (see Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b)).

DATED this 6th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00273-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2