Nguedi v. Administrative Office of the United States Court
This text of Nguedi v. Administrative Office of the United States Court (Nguedi v. Administrative Office of the United States Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GERARD NGUEDI,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 23-2965 (RDM) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gerard Nguedi, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (“AO”) and General Dynamics Information Technology (“GDIT”).
Dkt. 1 at 1–2. GDIT waived service, Dkt. 11; Dkt. 12, and filed an answer to Nguedi’s
Complaint on January 16, 2024, Dkt. 18. The AO moves to dismiss Nguedi’s Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). See generally Dkt.
17. As explained below, Nguedi has yet to effect service on the AO. Because Nguedi is
proceeding pro se, however, the Court will afford him a further opportunity to do so. The Court
will, accordingly, DENY the AO’s motion to dismiss as premature and will, instead, require that
Nguedi file proof of service made in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within
45 days of this Order. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss the action as against the AO
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).
Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those that
apply to pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro
se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) governs motions to
dismiss for insufficient service of process. “[T]he party on whose behalf service is made has the
burden of establishing its validity when challenged; to do so, he must demonstrate that the
procedure employed satisfied the requirements of the relevant portions of Rule 4 and any other
applicable provisions of law.” Light v. Wolf, 816 F.2d 746, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citation
omitted); see also Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) sets forth the time limits for service and the consequences of failing to
provide proper service. It states:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Nguedi has not properly served the AO. “To serve a United States agency . . . , a party
must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by
registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(i)(2). “To serve the United States, a party must:”
(A) (i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk—or (ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office;
(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and
(C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency or officer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). Nguedi “is responsible for having the summons and complaint served,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), but he—as a party to the case—may not himself serve the summons and
2 complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); see Johnson-Richardson v. Univ. of Phoenix, 334 F.R.D. 349,
357 (D.D.C. 2020); Smith v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2006) (collecting cases).
As the AO’s motion to dismiss explains, see Dkt. 17-1 at 29, Nguedi did not properly
effect service on the AO because he personally mailed the summons and complaint to U.S.
Attorney Matthew Graves; the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; U.S. Attorney
General Merrick Garland; and the Administrative Office of the United States. E.g., Dkt. 4 at 3
(“I, Gerard Nguedi, hereby declare that . . . I mailed a copy of the summons and
complaint . . . .”); see also id. at 4–6.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court may dismiss the action
without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified time. “Courts often decline
to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s case for defective service without first affording the plaintiff the
opportunity to correct any errors he or she may have made.” Johnson-Richardson, 334 F.R.D. at
357 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also, e.g., Hilska v. Jones, 217 F.R.D.
16, 22 (D.D.C. 2003). The Court will follow that route here and will direct Nguedi to effect
service within 45 days. The Court cautions Nguedi, however, that failure to properly serve the
AO within that time may result in dismissal of the claims against that party pursuant to Rule
4(m).
Because Nguedi has yet to effect service, the Court currently lacks personal jurisdiction
over the AO. See Jouanny v. Embassy of France in the U.S., 220 F. Supp. 3d 34, 40 (D.D.C.
2016); Lemma v. Hisp. Nat’l Bar Ass’n, 318 F. Supp. 3d 21, 25 (D.D.C. 2018). The Court,
accordingly, will not reach the AO’s other arguments for dismissal until service is effectuated.
See Hilska, 217 F.R.D. at 22 n.10 (“The court need not address defendant[’s] alternative Rule
12(b)(6) motion at this time in light of the court’s determination of insufficient service of
3 process.”); Anderson v. Gates, 20 F. Supp. 3d 114, 120 n.8 (D.D.C. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
Anderson v. Carter, 802 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The AO will be free to renew its arguments
should Nguedi effect service within 45 days; and if Nguedi fails to do so, the AO may seek
dismissal on that ground.
CONCLUSION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nguedi v. Administrative Office of the United States Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nguedi-v-administrative-office-of-the-united-states-court-dcd-2024.