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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CELERINO CARRASCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5104RJB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND

DISMISSING CASE

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. 

Dkt. 18. The court has considered all the entire record in this case. 

Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint and is proceeding in forma pauperis. He has already filed an

amended complaint in this case. Dkt. 7. February 12, 2007, the magistrate judge issued a Report and

Recommendation, recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly serve

defendants with a summons and copy of the complaint, or in the alternative, that the court should dismiss

the matter with prejudice because plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claim against any individual

participant. Dkt. 18.

On February 20, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 19. The

objections included exhibits, showing that plaintiff sent copies of the summons and complaint, through the

Mexican postal service. Dkt. 19, Exh. 1-3. The envelopes are addressed as follows:

Case 3:06-cv-05104-RJB Document 22 Filed 03/09/07 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

ORDER

Page - 2

To: Correctional Service Corporation

G.c Wilson and C. Cheek

1623 East “J” Street

Suite 2 Tacoma Wa.

98421.

Dkt. 19, Exh. 1 and 2.

On March 2, 2007, the court received two documents that were filed in this case. The documents

are captioned “Supersiding [sic] Objections and Appeal Against Order Dismissed” (Dkt.20) and

“Supersiding [sic] Objections for Purposes of Appeal and Against Order of Dismissal” (Dkt. 21). It is

unclear whether plaintiff intended that the court consider these documents in reference to C06-5084RJB or

in reference to this case. It is also unclear whether plaintiff intended these documents to be objections to

the Report and Recommendation or to be a Notice of Appeal. In an effort to give plaintiff every benefit of

the doubt, the court has considered all of these documents in reference to this case and to C06-5084RJB. 

In addition, the court has considered these the two documents filed on March 2, 2007 to be objections to

the Report and Recommendations in this case and in C06-5084RJB, and to constitute notices of appeal in

both of the cases. 

The Report and Recommendation clearly and thoroughly sets forth the procedural history in this

case. Plaintiff has not properly served any of the named defendants, as he has been ordered to do. Sending

a copy of the summons and complaint to the Correctional Service Corporation is not adequate service,

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, with respect to the United States Government or the Department of Homeland

Security. He was informed of his responsibility to properly serve the named defendants. Although plaintiff

is now residing in Mexico, he has had adequate time and opportunity to properly serve defendants, and to

provide proof of service. He has failed to effectuate proper service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Plaintiff believes

that sending a summons and/or complaint through the mail to the Correctional Services Corporation of

America, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Citizenship Immigration Service

constitutes adequate service. The magistrate judge thoroughly and carefully reviewed the requirements for

proper service of a summons and complaint; plaintiff did not comply with those requirements. Accordingly,

the court should dismiss this case. 

Furthermore, the court concurs with the conclusion of the magistrate judge that plaintiff has failed

to state a civil rights claim against any of the named defendants. It is not appropriate for the court to

Case 3:06-cv-05104-RJB Document 22 Filed 03/09/07 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

ORDER

Page - 3

permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure any deficiencies, since he has already

filed an amended complaint. 

The court has previously vacated the judgment in this case so that documents plaintiff untimely filed

could reviewed on the merits. Any documents received from plaintiff after judgment is again entered in

this case should be placed in the file by the Clerk, but the court will not consider them. 

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Dkt. 18) is

ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to file any documents received from

plaintiff after judgment is entered, but the court will not consider them. The Clerk is further directed

to file the following documents as a Notice of Appeal in this case: the document captioned “Supersiding

[sic] Objections and Appeal Against Order Dismissed” (Dkt. 20); and “Supersiding Objections of Appeal

and Against Order of Dismissal” (Dkt. 21)

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any

party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

Dated this 9th day of March, 2007. 

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05104-RJB Document 22 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 3