Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-0344-G.
July 28, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On July 13, 2004, the court issued an order noting that service on the defendant had not been accomplished and providing that this case would be dismissed without further notice unless the plaintiff showed cause in writing by July 28, 2004, why it should be retained on the docket. The plaintiff has submitted a letter dated July 20, 2004, which the court construes as an attempt to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. In that letter, the plaintiff states, as his explanation for non-service, "I thought that once I sent the summons to [the] District Clerk, she would then have the summons served and then notify me in writing that things were complete." Letter of July 20, 2004, at 1. However, Rule 4(c)(1), F.R. CIV. P., places responsibility for timely service squarely on the plaintiff. That rule says, in pertinent part: "The plaintiff is responsible for service of a summons and complaint within the time allowed under subdivision (m) and shall furnish the person effecting service wit the necessary copies of the summons and complaint."
Despite the plaintiff's apparent misunderstanding about his responsibility for effecting service, it appears from his letter that he did make an effort to serve the defendant. He avers that he "submitted one copy of the complaint to each of the above mentioned offices [ i.e., the U.S. Attorney, the Attorney General, and the EEOC (Dallas District Office)]." Letter of July 20, 2004, at 1. He also asserts that "copies of the certified mail receipts of all the correspondence between the Defendant and me . . . proves that these documents were mailed out." Id.
It thus appears that the plaintiff made an attempt, albeit an imperfect one, at serving the defendant. Rule 4(1)(2)(A), F.R.CIV.P., prescribes the procedure for serving an agency of the United States such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Rule 4(i)(3) requires the court to allow a reasonable time to cure failures to serve under Rule 4(i)(2)(A).
Accordingly, the court grants an extension to August 31, 2004 of the time ordinarily allowed by Rule 4(m), F.R.CIV.P., for completion of service. By that date, the plaintiff shall serve the defendant, in the manner required by Rule 4(i)(2)(A), with a summons and copy of the complaint, as required by Rule 4(c)(1).
Failure of the plaintiff to complete service on the defendant in accordance with Rule 4, F.R. CIV. P., by August 31, 2004, will result in dismissal of this case without further notice.
SO ORDERED.