1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AHMAD ABU ELREICH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00814-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PROOF OF SERVICE

13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO RETURN SERVICE FORMS 14 WAYMO LLC, et. al., (Doc. No. 21) 15 Defendants. TEN-DAY DEADLINE 16

17 18 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (Doc. No. 1). On 19 August 1, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and determined 20 it stated a claim against Defendants Waymo LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. for patent 21 infringement sufficient to withstand screening under

(e)(2). (Doc. No. 13 at 1). 22 The Court directed Plaintiff to complete and return service documents so service of Plaintiff’s 23 FAC could be effectuated upon Defendants. (Doc. No. 13 at 2). On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff 24 was granted an extension of time to return the service documents. (Doc. No. 19 at 1). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs the commencement of an action and the service 26 of process. “Service of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction 27 of the subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.” Omni 28 Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.,

(1987)). The plain language of Rule 4 1 requires that a summons contain certain information including, but not limited to, the name of the 2 court, the parties, and that the summons directed at the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). 3 On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Certificate/Proof of Service” with the Court. 4 (Doc. No. 21, “Proof of Service”). The Proof of Service noted that the server served two blank 5 summonses on Defendant Waymo. (Id. at 1). Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 4, it 6 appears that service of process has not been properly affected on any Defendant. (See docket.). 7 The Court will sua sponte strike Plaintiff’s Proof of Service for failure to comply with Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 4. See Thalassinos v. Adair,

, at *3 (M.D. Ala. May 20, 2013) (“The 9 service of process inquiry is not simply academic, nor is the Court overstepping boundaries by 10 raising the issue sua sponte.”); see also McHaffie v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

, 11 at *1 (M.D. Ga. June 2, 2011). 12 Further, the Court reminds Plaintiff that because he is proceeding in forma pauperis the 13 Court will order the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service on the Defendants, and Plaintiff should not 14 attempt to effectuate service himself. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff twice has been directed to 15 fill out the service forms and return them to the Court, and has failed to do so to date. (See Doc. 16 Nos. 13 & 19). Plaintiff was also twice informed that his failure to comply with the Court’s order 17 directing Plaintiff to return the service forms may result in the dismissal of this action. (Doc. No. 18 13 at 2); (Doc. No. 19 at 3). Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will afford Plaintiff one 19 final opportunity to fill out and return the service forms to the Court so the Court can direct the 20 United States Marshall to effectuate service on the Defendants. 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 22 1. Plaintiff’s Certificate/Proof of Service (Doc. No. 21) is STRICKEN; 23 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff: 24 a. Two (2) USM-285 forms 25 b. Two (2) summons forms 26 c. A Notice of Submission of Documents form 27 d. An instruction sheet 28 e. A copy of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 11) filed on July 30, 2025 1 3. Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete 2 and return to the Court the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the 3 following: 4 a. Two (2) completed USM-285 forms 5 b. Two (2) completed summons 6 c. Four (4) copies of the First Amended Complaint 7 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of 8 service. Upon receipt of these documents, the Court will direct the United States 9 Marshals Service to serve the Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of 10 Civil Procedure, without prepayment of costs; 11 5. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action 12 for his failure to timely prosecute this action and comply with a Court Order pursuant 13 to Local Rule 110. The Court will issue no further warnings. 14 1S Dated: _ November 6, 2025 law ZA. foareh Zackte 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28