He v. Noem

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 He, CASE NO. 3-25-cv-05333-DGE 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 12 v. 13 Noem et al, 14 Defendant. 15

16 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District 17 Judge David G. Estudillo: 18 The Court received Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. No. 10) regarding the Court’s order denying 19 an ex parte TRO (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff states that on April 21, 2025 they served process to the 20 U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington (c/o Civil 21 Process Clerk), and Defendants Noem and Lyons, via USPS overnight mail. (Dkt. No. 10 at 3.) 22 Plaintiff also states that they will “file a certificate of service on the docket promptly upon 23 receipt of confirmation from USPS, as required by Local Civil Rule 65(b).” (Id.) Once Plaintiff 24 1 files the certificate of service with a signed mailing receipt from USPS, the Court will consider 2 service proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i); Fuqua v. Turner, 996 F.3d 1140, 1155 (11th Cir. 2021) 3 (service to an officer of the United States via certified mail “requires the addressee or his 4 authorized agent to sign the return receipt,” and is then properly effectuated.) At that point, the 5 Court will have jurisdiction over the Defendants. See Vargas v. Potter, 792 F. Supp. 2d 214, 217

6 (D.P.R. 2011). Consistent with Plaintiff’s request and this Court’s prior order, the Court will 7 schedule a TRO hearing promptly once Plaintiff files the certificate of service with the USPS 8 mailing receipt. 9 Dated this 21st day of April 2025. 10 The foregoing Minute Order authorized by THE HONORABLE DAVID G. 11 ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24