Opinion ID: 676995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Armstrong's Failure to Serve the DEA Agents Warranted Dismissal of the Complaint.

Text: 27 The second motion to dismiss by the government was explicitly premised upon Armstrong's fail[ure] to serve the United States, although a supporting affidavit narrated the failure to serve the DEA Agents, and neither the order nor the judgment of dismissal articulated the legal basis for that action. Thus, the dominant ground for dismissal apparently was failure to serve the United States, a service that (we have concluded) the law does not require. 28 In addition, the government may well have waived the defense of failure to serve the DEA Agents by choosing to assert only the insufficiency of service upon the United States in both of its motions to dismiss Armstrong's complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(g) (all defenses must be consolidated in single Rule 12 motion) and 12(h)(1) (defenses of insufficiency of service of process waived if omitted from initial Rule 12 motion). In our view, the assertion of insufficiency of service as to the United States should not be regarded as preserving the separate issue of insufficiency of service upon the DEA Agents. 29 Finally, the Service's letter to Armstrong dated December 15, 1992 was unwarranted. That letter returned Armstrong's USM-285 Forms to him unexecuted, notified him that the DEA Agents had not timely returned the USM-299 Forms that had been mailed to them, and directed him to notify the Service in writing and submit a new USM-285 Form if he desir[ed] this office to make any further effort to serve the summons and complaint on this defendant [sic]. 30 As previously noted, both 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) obligated the Service to serve the summons and complaint upon the DEA Agents for Armstrong. Armstrong's initial USM-285 Forms invoked the Service's performance of that duty. The service then attempted unsuccessfully to obtain a waiver of service from the DEA Agents pursuant to Rule 4(d). When that effort failed, it was the Service's obligation to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(e); it did not have the option to require fresh, superfluous instructions from Armstrong. Cf. Romandette v. Weetabix Co., 807 F.2d 309, 311 (2d Cir.1986) (incarcerated prisoner entitled to rely on service by the U.S. Marshals). 31 In view of this combination of factors and circumstances, we perceive no basis to affirm the dismissal of Armstrong's complaint because of an asserted failure by Armstrong to serve the summons and complaint upon the DEA Agents.