Tift v. McFadden

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 GREGORY S. TIFT, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00999-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR v. FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS 13 PETER P. MCFADDEN et al., AND LACK OF RULE 11 14 CERTIFICATION Defendants. 15

17 On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff Gregory Tift filed a complaint seeking to have this Court 18 “Quash the Summons issued to Bank of America and order damages against the IRS employee 19 Peter P. McFadden and the United States of America, Aka Department of Treasury, Internal 20 Revenue Service.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Mr. Tift named Peter P. McFadden, the United States of 21 America, and the Internal Revenue Service as defendants, and listed Bank of America as a 22 “Nominal Defendant.” Id. Mr. Tift requested issuance of summons for only the first three of 23 these defendants. See Dkt. No. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5. The Court issued summons for the three requested 24 defendants on July 6, 2023. Dkt. No. 3. 1 Under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] summons—or a copy of a 2 summons that is addressed to multiple defendants—must be issued for each defendant to be 3 served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b). For any defendant whom a plaintiff fails to serve within 90 days 4 after filing the complaint, “the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must

5 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 6 specified time.” Id. at 4(m). Proof of service in this case was due by no later than September 28, 7 2023. 8 While the Court acknowledges that Mr. Tift is proceeding pro se (without an attorney), 9 all litigants are required to comply with Court and procedural rules. Mr. Tift is especially well- 10 equipped to do so, given his extensive experience litigating cases in this District. See Gregory S. 11 Tift v. Michael D. Ball, et al., C07-276, 2008 WL 11389469 at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2008) 12 (listing the six cases Mr. Tift had previously filed in this District as of 2008). Further, Mr. Tift 13 previously has filed at least two other lawsuits in this District to quash subpoenas from the IRS 14 to Bank of America at different time periods, demonstrating his familiarity with how to serve the

15 summons on these defendants. See Tift v. Internal Revenue Serv. & Richard Ped, C11-1673, Dkt. 16 No. 1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2011); Tift v. Internal Revenue Serv. & Mel Hammer, C08-332, Dkt. 17 No. 1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 26, 2008). 18 Mr. Tift is also subject to a Bar Order, which requires him to include alongside his filing 19 of any claim in this District a “Rule 11 Certification” providing the factual and legal basis for the 20 claim and detailing how that claim falls outside of the Bar Order’s scope. See Tift v. Ball, 2008 21 WL 11389469 at *6. Mr. Tift failed to submit the required certification with his complaint. 22 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to: 23 1. For each Defendant, FILE either proof of service or waiver, or to SHOW CAUSE why

24 service has not been completed; 1 2. SHOW CAUSE why Bank of America, for whom no summons has even been requested, 2 should not be immediately dismissed as a defendant; and 3 3. COMPLETE and FILE a Rule 11 Certification as required to maintain this case. 4 Failure to respond to any of the Court’s inquiries as directed by Monday, November 13,

5 2023, will result in this case being dismissed. 6 Dated this 30th day of October 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