Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona addresses alleged deficiencies in service of process by plaintiff Ricky Carl Barnes. The court orders Barnes to file proofs showing that a nonparty served the complaint and summons, or provide a declaration from the nonparty who made the prior mailings, by March 27, 2026; otherwise, defendants in the United States may be terminated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's attempted service was proper when the record did not establish that executed summonses were included in the mailings.
- Whether service complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2) when Plaintiff personally mailed the complaint and summons.
Holdings
- Service of the summons and complaint is improper under Rule 4(c)(2) when performed personally by the plaintiff rather than by a person at least 18 years old who is not a party.
- The existing record did not permit the court to determine whether the prior mailings included proper, executed summonses; Plaintiff therefore was required to clarify the contents of the mailings through proper proofs or a nonparty declaration.
Key quotations
“According to Rule 4(c), “[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.”” (at 1)
“IT IS ORDERED no later than March 27, 2026, plaintiff shall file proofs that service of the complaint and summons was completed by a nonparty.” (at 2)
Factual background
Barnes attempted to serve the defendants by certified United States mail and filed certificates of service. The United States Attorney's Office stated that it received a copy of the complaint but not an executed summons. The record also indicated that Barnes may have personally mailed the documents.
Procedural history
Barnes filed certificates stating that he mailed the complaint and summons to the United States Attorney's Office, the United States Attorney General, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The United States Attorney's Office reported that it received the complaint but not an executed summons. The court also determined that Barnes appeared to have personally made the mailings, which would not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2), and ordered new proofs of service or a declaration from the nonparty who made the mailings.