Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180418_0001838.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:18:31+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Defendant.
Plaintiffs Sodjine Paul Anato and Sarah Anato (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking review of the order of the National Appeals Division (“NAD”) of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). On March 14, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied review and transferred Plaintiffs' petition to the United States District Court for the District of Montana. (Doc. 1). The petition requests that this Court review the Director Review Determination of the National Appeals Division “on the motion to Reconsider[sic] to allow the USDA to foreclose on the plaintiffs' home mortgage entered on November 02[, ] 2016.” (Doc. 2).
On January 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging six causes of action against Defendant, alleging federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 15). Notably, however, Plaintiffs have not served a summons on Defendant.
Courts generally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, and hold pro se plaintiffs “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n. 9 (1989). Nevertheless, pro se plaintiffs are still “bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).
While the Court has authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim or failure to provide proof of service, “[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants do not object to the Court granting Plaintiffs an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in pleading and to accomplish service of process. (Doc. 7 at 2-3).
While a court is required to liberally construe a pro se pleading, a pro se plaintiff is still required to abide by the rules for service of process. In order for the Court to have jurisdiction over Defendant, Plaintiffs must serve Defendant with a summons in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 4. Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that on or before May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court proof of service of summons and complaint on Defendant or show cause why this cause should not be dismissed, without prejudice.
Defendant requests that if this Court does not dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, it should require Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement than was made in Plaintiffs' original petition under Rule 12(e). On January 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging a variety of torts and constitutional torts against the USDA. (Doc. 15). The Complaint alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleges proper venue, provides a plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief, and contains a request for relief. This Complaint suffices as a claim for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), and is a more definite statement. Therefore, Defendant's request for a more definite statement is moot.

References: § 1331
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1331