Giang v. DeJoy

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROSALINN M. GIANG, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-22-112-D
)
LOUIS DEJOY, 	)
Postmaster General, 	)
)
DEFENDANT. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff was previously directed to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process within 90 days after
filing the complaint. See Order of Sept. 20, 2022 [Doc. No. 10]. After being granted an
extension of time to respond, Plaintiff filed a response [Doc. No. 14] explaining the reasons
for the delay. The Court determined that Plaintiff had not shown good cause for her failure
to timely effect service, but granted Plaintiff a permissive extension of time in which to
properly serve Defendant. See Order dated November 2, 2022 [Doc. No. 15]. Plaintiff
subsequently filed three proofs of service and a notice. These documents aver that a
Summons and a copy of the Complaint were served on Defendant DeJoy [Doc. No. 18],
the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia [Doc. No. 19], and the United States
Attorney General [Doc. No. 20].
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, appears to be attempting to sue Mr. DeJoy, the
United States Postmaster General, in his official capacity. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that a party seeking to serve a United States officer in an official
Case 5:22-cv-00112-D Document 24 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 2

2
capacity must serve the officer and serve the United States by delivering a copy of the
summons and complaint “to the United States attorney for the district where the action is
brought” and “to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(i). Plaintiff’s filings indicate that she has attempted to serve Mr. DeJoy and the
Attorney General, but do not indicate that she has served the United States attorney for the
district where the action is brought. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has still not properly
served Defendant. However, Rule 4(i)(4)(A) provides that “[t]he court must allow a party
a reasonable time to cure its failure to serve a person required to be served under Rule
4(i)(2), if the party has served either the United States attorney or the Attorney General of
the United States.”
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this Order to
complete proper service and to file proof of service with the Court. Plaintiff is further
advised that her failure to complete proper service within this time limit will result in
dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6 th day of February, 2023.
Case 5:22-cv-00112-D Document 24 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 2