Sukach v. United States Citizen and Immigration Services San Francisco Asylum Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DMYTRO SUKACH, CASE NO. C24-0515JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SAN FRANCISCO ASYLUM OFFICE, 15 Defendant.

16 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Dmytro Sukach’s complaint against Defendant United States Citizen and Immigration Services San Francisco Asylum Office (“USCIS”). (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) On July 18, 2024, the court ordered Mr. Sukach to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)’s 90-day timeline to serve USCIS with a summons and a copy of the complaint. (7/18/24 Order (Dkt. # 3).) Mr. Sukach responded to the // court’s order on July 24, 2024. (Resp. (Dkt. # 4).) The court finds that Mr. Sukach has not complied with Rule 4 and therefore dismisses his complaint without prejudice.

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c) governs service. That rule provides that “[a] summons must be served with a copy of the complaint” by someone “who is at least 18 years old and not a party” “within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1)-(2). Rule 4(m) provides that 7 [i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss 8 the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 9 failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

11 Here, Mr. Sukach states he served USCIS by Certified Mail and via email in April 2024. There are two problems with Mr. Sukach’s attempts to serve USCIS. First, Rule 4(c) requires a summons to be served with a copy of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). It is not clear, however, what document(s) Mr. Sukach mailed or emailed to USCIS. (See generally Resp.) Second, Mr. Sukach attempted to effectuate service himself (see Resp. at 5-6), which Rule 4(c)(2) prohibits, see Nguyen v. Lucky, No. EDCV 18-1452 JGB (SPx), 2018 WL 10014508, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) (“Plaintiff attempted service through FedEx Express mail, but it appears he mailed the documents himself. Rule 4(c) expressly prohibits a party to the action from effectuating service, and this prohibition includes service through mail.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (providing service of the summons and complaint may be made by “[a]ny person who is at least 18 // years old and not a party”). Mr. Sukach therefore failed to properly serve USCIS within 90 days of filing his complaint, and the court finds no good cause for that failure.

3 Because Mr. Sukach failed to properly serve USCIS within 90 days after filing his complaint, the court DISMISSES Mr. Suckach’s claims, and this action, without prejudice.

6 Dated this 11th day of September, 2024.

A JAMES L. ROBART 8 United States District Judge