Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01757/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01757-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Defendant
Christopher Edward White
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER EDWARD WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01757-KAW 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, commenced this Social Security case on April 16, 

2014. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On June 12, 2014, he consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 5.) 

Summons was issued on February 19, 2015. (Summons, Dkt. No. 12.) Since the issuance 

of summons, Plaintiff has not filed a certificate of service showing that the Defendant has been 

served within the 120-day deadline set forth in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

or that Defendant has been served as required by Rule 4(i).1 

In light of this, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff "to show cause why this matter 

should not be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve Defendant." (Nov. 9, 2015 OSC, 

Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff was to file a written response to the order within 14 days. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed a timely response on November 21, 2015. (Pl.'s Response, Dkt. No. 14.) 

The filing, however, did not sufficiently respond to the order to show cause in that it failed to 

address why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve 

 

1 On February 5, 2015, prior to the issuance of summons, Plaintiff did file a certificate of service. 

That certificate, however, indicates that the Office of the Regional Chief Counsel for the Social 

Security Administration was the only party served.

Case 4:14-cv-01757-KAW Document 16 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant. It did not address whether service was timely under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure or whether service was properly effected under Rule 4(i). As to the former, 

Plaintiff merely stated: "[a] OneLegal, LLC Order Status document states that the service date 

was March 3, 2015 at 12:30PM. I surmise that the Social Security Administrative has taken the 

position that the Summons was not served in a timely manner." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff, however, did

not state his position on the issue. 

As to the latter, the only certificate of service Plaintiff filed with his response showed that 

the only party served was the Office of Regional Chief Counsel for the Social Security 

Administration. Plaintiff did not address whether this satisfied Rule 4(i), which requires service 

on the local U.S. attorney's office and the Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(i). 

In light of these deficiencies, the Court allowed Plaintiff an additional opportunity to 

address these issues in a supplemental response, which was due within 14 days of November 24, 

2015—December 8, 2015. The Court's order required Plaintiff to address (1) whether service was 

timely under Rule 4(m) and, if not, why the case should not be dismissed,2and (2) whether service 

was effected as required by Rule 4(i). The Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to satisfactorily 

address these issues, this action would be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve 

Defendant. As of the filing of this order, Plaintiff has not filed the required response.

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to timely and 

properly serve Defendant as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 4(i).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/14/15

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that "[i]f a defendant is not served 120 days after 

the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against the 

defendant . . . ."

Case 4:14-cv-01757-KAW Document 16 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 2