Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01420/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01420-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant
Yiran Zhang
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YIRAN ZHANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-1420-DJC-JDP (PS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (“USCIS”), alleging that defendant has improperly delayed scheduling an interview in 

connection with plaintiff’s application for political asylum. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has filed a 

motion for default judgment. ECF No. 7. The record fails to demonstrate that defendant was 

properly served with a copy of the summons and complaint. Accordingly, I recommend that 

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied. I also order plaintiff to show cause why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to timely complete service.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default may be entered against a party who 

fails to plead or otherwise defend against an action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In deciding 

whether default judgment is appropriate, a court must first consider “the adequacy of the service 

of process on the party against whom default judgment is requested.” Bricklayers & Allied 

Case 2:24-cv-01420-DJC-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/14/25 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

27

28

2

Craftworkers Local Union No. 3 v. Palomino, No. C-09-01589-CW (DMR), 2010 WL 2219595, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010). “Absent a showing that a defendant has adequately been informed

of an action, it is inappropriate to conclude that the defendant ‘has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend.’” Downing v. Wanchek, No. CIV S-07-1599 JAM EFB, 2009 WL 256502, at *3 (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 30, 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)). Under the Federal Rules, service on a federal 

agency, such as USCIS, is accomplished by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to 

the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and by sending a copy of the summons 

and complaint by registered or certified mail to both the agency and the Attorney General of the 

United States in Washington, D.C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2).

Plaintiff has filed a proof of service reflecting that a process server sent via certified mail 

a copy of the summons and complaint to the Office of the Chief Counsel for USCIS. ECF No. 5. 

There is, however, no indication that plaintiff sent a copy of the summons and complaint to the 

U.S. Attorney for this district or the Attorney General of the United States. Plaintiff has therefore 

failed to demonstrate that defendant was properly served, and plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment should be denied. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 

after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Although a pro 

se litigants are generally afforded more latitude than one represented by counsel, a party’s pro se 

status does not constitute “good cause” for failing to timely effect service. See King v. Atiyeh, 

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 

govern other litigants.”); Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987)

(holding that ignorance of service requirements does not constitute “good cause” for failure to 

timely effect service); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (“Any individual representing himself or 

herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Case 2:24-cv-01420-DJC-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/14/25 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

27

28

3

Rules, and all other applicable law.”). Accordingly, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why 

this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve defendant.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of this order why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed 

by Rule 4(m).

2. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect services of process.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 7, 

be denied without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01420-DJC-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 3