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

CLAUD CAVINESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY OF

THE NAVY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY,

 Defendant.

CIV. S-04-2388 EJG PAN PS

ORDER

—NFN—

On April 13, 2005, in response to this court’s April 4

order to show cause why defendants had not been served with

process, plaintiff informed the court he had served a copy of the

complaint upon defendant Secretary of the Navy. On April 26,

2005, this court allowed plaintiff 11 additional days to file

proof of service of the summons and complaint upon defendant

pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(I), or to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed. 

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 06/06/05 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

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(I) 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.”

Plaintiff has submitted proof only that by certified mail

he sent process to “Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy,” at

the U.S. Department of the Navy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington,

D.C. 20350-1000. 

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 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 06/06/05 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

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). 

To comply 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:

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

within 11 days. Failure to comply will result in a

recommendation this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

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

So ordered. 

Dated: June 6, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 06/06/05 Page 3 of 3