Opinion ID: 180769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ms. Constien's Efforts at Service

Text: Ms. Constien filed her initial complaint on August 7, 2009. She then mailed a summons to each of the four DOE officials. On November 20 she moved for entry of default because none of the defendants had answered. Four days later the district court denied the motion, noting that the United States attorney had not been served. After filing the amended complaint on December 2, 2009, Ms. Constien again mailed a summons to each of the DOE officials, and she also mailed process to the Attorney General and the United States attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma. On December 14 and 21, Assistant United States Attorney R.D. Evans Jr. sent Ms. Constien letters stating that the government did not believe that it had properly been served, that it could not waive defects in service, and that failure to effect service properly could lead to dismissal of the case. When service had still not been properly effected, the government moved to dismiss on January 8, 2010. On April 30 the district court found that Ms. Constien had failed to comply with Rule 4, specifically noting that she had improperly tried to act as her own process server. The district court did not dismiss the case; instead it ordered Ms. Constien to serve the defendants properly by May 20 or face dismissal. On May 10, 2010, the Attorney General received a certified-mail delivery of Ms. Constien's motion for default. The return address label bore the name Joan Gaye Croft and the same post office box used by Ms. Constien. The certified mail did not include either the complaint or the summons. On May 13 a deputy United States Marshal served Evans, the assistant United States attorney handling the case. But he had not been designated to accept service of process and so informed Ms. Constien in a letter dated May 17. [8] On May 21, 2010, the government, believing that Ms. Constien still had not effected service, renewed its motion to dismiss all defendants. This time the motion was granted. The district court found that there was no evidence of service on the Attorney General, the United States attorney or his designee, or any defendant. The court dismissed the case without prejudice in a four-page order on June 24. [9]