Mohsin v. California Department of Transportation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-04734
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SYED MOHSIN, Case No. 24-cv-04734-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 This is an employment discrimination action filed by pro se plaintiff Syed Mohsin against 14 the California Department of Transportation and a number of individual defendants. Dkt. No. 1. 15 Mohsin alleges claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth 16 Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 17 § 12101, and other laws. Id. 18 Defendants the California Department of Transportation, Albert Rogers, Aaron Gabbani, 19 Nicole Buchko, Raymond Nuezca, Daniel Armstrong, Caren Coonrod, Trisha Baird, Matthew 20 Brady, and Ansel Ortiz ask to dismiss the complaint because they were not served in compliance 21 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, among other grounds. Dkt. Nos. 20, 27, 29. Rule 4 states 22 the requirements of service, and pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1), “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having 23 the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the 24 necessary copies to the person who makes service.” 25 When, as here, the sufficiency of service is challenged, “the party on whose behalf service 26 was made . . . has the burden to establish its validity.” Hickory Travel Systems, Inc. v. TUI AG, 27 213 F.R.D. 547, 551-52 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (quotations and citation omitted). Mohsin did not file an 1 defendants were properly served. Although Mohsin has some leeway as a pro se litigant, he is still 2 || “bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 Defendant Steven Hughes asks to dismiss the complaint because the claims “are barred by 4 the eleventh amendment, Plaintiff failed to timely file his lawsuit, and his causes of action fail to 5 || meet the pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.” Dkt. No. 30. Mohsin again 6 || did not oppose these contentions, or any other arguments for dismissal. 7 The complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed. No further 8 || filings will be accepted. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 4, 2025 11

JAMES A#PONATO 13 United Ptates District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28