Tacina v. Internal Revenue Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION JEFF TACINA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00039-MTS ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. When the United States* removed this action, Plaintiff had not yet served it. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is not served within ninety days after the complaint is filed, the Court “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). In cases removed to federal court, the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) runs from the date of removal, not the date the plaintiff filed the petition in state court. Taylor v. Clark Equip. Co., 4:22-cv-00201- SRC, 2022 WL 1640372, at *6 (E.D. Mo. May 24, 2022) (collecting cases). Well over ninety days have passed since removal, and there is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has served Defendant.

Accordingly, * The United States is the proper Defendant here. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(f)(1).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than Tuesday, August 26, 2025, Plaintiff must serve, and file proof of such service, the United States. The failure to file proof of service of Defendant by that date will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Dated this 12th day of August 2025. fe | THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE _2-