Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00197/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
INS
Defendant
Ildefonso Soto-Servin
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ILDEFONSO SOTO-SERVIN,,

Petitioner,

v.

I.N.S.,

Respondent.

CIV S-05-0197 MCE PAN PS

ORDER 

—NFN—

On January 31, 2005, petitioner, a Sacramento resident

and Mexican citizen, paid the filing fee and filed a “Petition

for de Novo Immigration Review” challenging an order of

deportation entered August 2003 by the United States Immigration

Court in San Francisco. A summons was issued January 31 but

petitioner has not demonstrated service of process upon

respondent.

The court’s “Order Requiring Timely Service and Joint

Status Report” filed January 31 instructed petitioner that

Case 2:05-cv-00197-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 4
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

service of process should be completed within 120 days of filing

the complaint (petition) or, in this case, by Tuesday, May 31,

2005.

Service of process upon the United States and its

agencies is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. (i), which provides: 

“(1) Service of process upon the United States shall be effected

(A) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to

the United States attorney for the district in which the action

is brought . . . or by sending a copy of the summons and of the

complaint by registered or certified mail addressed to the civil

process clerk at the office of the United States attorney and (B)

by also sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint by

registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the

United States at Washington, District of Columbia, and . . .

(2)(A) Service on an agency or corporation of the United States,

or an officer or employee of the United States sued only in an

official capacity, is effected by serving the United States in

the manner prescribed by Rule 4(I)(1) and by also sending a copy

of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to

the officer, employee, agency, or corporation.”

The Ninth Circuit has encouraged district courts to be

“generally more solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants,

particularly when technical jurisdictional requirements are

involved.” Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 448, n.2 (9th Cir.

1985). Lenience notwithstanding, substantial compliance with

Rule 4 is required, even for pro se plaintiffs. See Bramesco v.

Case 2:05-cv-00197-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Drug Computer Consultants, 148 F.R.D. 690 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). 

Moreover, that defendants have actual notice of an action, absent

special circumstances, is insufficient to confer personal

jurisdiction in the absence of valid service of process. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Mid-Continent Wood Prod., Inc. v. Harris, 936

F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344 (9th

Cir. 1982). 

In order to achieve compliance with Rule 4(i), plaintiff

is directed to send by certified or registered mail a copy of the

summons and complaint to each of the following:

Susan Curda, Regional Director

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Sacramento Sub Office

650 Capitol Mall

Sacramento CA 95815

McGregor W. Scott

United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

c/o Civil Process Clerk

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814-2322

Alberto Gonzalez

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Plaintiff is directed to file proof of such service by

July 20, 2005. Failure to comply with this order may result in a 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00197-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

recommendation this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

So ordered.

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00197-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 4