1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RHAWN JOSEPH, PH.D., Case No. 25-cv-02773-NW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: ECF No. 1 10 U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. 11

12

13 Plaintiff Rhawn Johnson, Ph. D.,1 filed this action on March 24, 2025 against several 14 dozen government officials and entities.2 ECF No. 1. Summons was issued that same day. ECF 15 No. 2. 16 To maintain his suit, a plaintiff must serve a summons and a copy of the complaint in the 17 manner and within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. “Unless service is 18 waived, proof of service must be made to the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). “If a defendant is not 19 served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice 20

21 1 Plaintiff is self-represented. So that Plaintiff is fully informed, the Court notes that the San Jose Courthouse houses a Federal Pro Se Program that provides free information and limited-scope 22 legal advice to pro se parties in federal civil cases. The Program can help determine whether cases might be eligible for appointment of pro bono counsel and can provide referrals to other legal 23 services. Appointments can be made by calling (408) 297-1480. More information is available online at https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/federal-pro-se-program-san-jose- 24 courthouse.

25 2 The complaint’s caption lists the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as a Defendant. Nevertheless, the “rule of necessity” means that the undersigned need 26 not recuse herself. See Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit,

, 1163–1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that under the rule of necessity—which allows a 27 normally disqualified judge to hear a case that could not otherwise be heard—a three-member 1 to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that 2 service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 3 Plaintiff has not filed a certificate of service showing that any Defendant has been served 4 within the 90-day deadline as set forth in Rules 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor 5 has Plaintiff demonstrated that he complied with the procedures required for serving the 6 government set forth in Rule 4(i).3 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why this 7 matter should not be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve Defendants. Plaintiff shall 8 file a written response to this order to show cause within 14 days. 9 Plaintiff also requests leave to file and serve all documents electronically via the CM/ECF 10 system. ECF No. 22. As explained more comprehensively in the CAND pro se handbook, “the 11 rules for serving the complaint are different from the rules for serving other documents. Pro Se 12 Handbook at 11, available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/pro-se-handbook 13 (emphasis in original). To maintain his suit, Plaintiff must serve each Defendant in accordance 14 with Rule 4. Plaintiff may use CM/ECF to serve non-case-initiating documents upon Defendants 15 once he effectuates service upon Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 (governing service of papers 16 that do not assert a claim for relief). 17 The Court understands that Plaintiff already has a CM/ECF account, however. ECF No. 18 22. Plaintiff is directed to associate his account with this suit so that he receives Notices of 19 Electronic Filing (“NEFs”) from the Court.4 As a one-time courtesy, the Court’s courtroom 20 deputy will email this order to Plaintiff to ensure he receives these instructions. Going forward, 21 the Court will presume that Plaintiff receives all Court filings and other notifications when they 22 23 24 3 The United States Attorney’s Office notified Plaintiff that he failed to properly serve Defendants 25 on April 15, 2025 and again on May 21, 2025. ECF No. 15. That letter correctly notes that Federal Express (oftentimes called FedEx) “is not ‘registered or certified mail’ under Rule 26 4(i)(1).” Id. (quoting Lietz v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 23-35603,

, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)). Plaintiff cannot lawfully serve Defendants using FedEx. 27 1 are transmitted electronically, and the Court will no longer mail filings and notifications to 2 || Plaintiffs address. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 31, 2025

Noél Wise 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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