Friedmann v. Internal Revenue Service

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA 10 11 MICHAEL FRIEDMANN, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05075-TL 12 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER REGARDING v. DEFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS 13 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 Plaintiff Michael Friedmann filed a Proposed Complaint with an application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis on January 29, 2023. Dkt. No. 1. His application was granted on February 6 by 19 the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, and his Complaint was filed 20 on the docket that same day. Dkt. Nos. 3–4. Mr. Friedmann failed to file proof of service per the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), but because he is a pro se plaintiff, the Court 22 granted Mr. Friedmann additional time to serve process or to show cause for why the Court 23 should not dismiss his Complaint. Dkt. No. 8. On June 30, 2023, the Court received Mr. 24 Friedmann’s response that included proof of service by mail on some, but not all entities required 1 to initiate a lawsuit in federal court against the United States government and its agencies 2 pursuant to FRCP 4(i). See Dkt. Nos. 9–10. The Court granted Mr. Friedmann an additional 3 extension until August 11, 2023, to allow time to serve the missing entities. Dkt. No. 10. Mr. 4 Friedmann filed additional proof of service on August 7, indicating that he accomplished

5 personal service on the same entities that he had previously served by mail. Compare Dkt. 6 No. 11 with Dkt. No. 9. 7 The rule governing service of process on U.S. government agencies requires plaintiffs to 8 serve the agency itself as well as any individually named agency employees. Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 4(i)(1)(c). However, plaintiffs must also serve the United States, by and through service on the 10 United States attorney for the district where the action is brought and the Attorney General of the 11 United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A) and (B). Here, Plaintiff has provided proof of service on 12 the agency and named agency employee but has not provided proof of service on the United 13 States as required by Rule 4(i)(1)(A) and (B). 14 “[I]t is axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever their ability level, are subject to the same

15 procedural requirements as other litigants.” Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 16 2022). That said, a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings generally should be held “to less stringent 17 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” E.g., Florer v. Congregation Pidyon 18 Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 923 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 19 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). Additionally, here the rule itself contemplates further leniency for 20 plaintiffs under similar circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(B) (requiring courts to grant 21 additional time to accomplish service of process for plaintiffs who, having served a United States 22 officer or employee, failed to serve the United States). For these reasons, the Court finds good 23 cause to grant Mr. Friedmann one more opportunity to complete service on the United States as

24 described in FRCP 4(i)(1)(A) and (B). 1 The Court therefore ORDERS Mr. Friedmann to file proof of service consistent with the 2 requirements of FRCP 4(i)(1)(A) and(B), or waiver, by no later than Friday, September 1, 3 2023. If the United States makes an appearance on behalf of the named defendants by this 4 deadline, the Court will assume that service was properly accomplished, and no further action

5 will be required pursuant to this Order. 6 Dated this 21st day of August 2023. 7 A 8 Tana Lin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24