Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and default judgment in an immigration action. The court held that the plaintiff had not properly served the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), particularly because he had not shown service on the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Decision date
January 22, 2026
Docket number
2:25-cv-02177-CDS-EJY
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the pleadings before properly serving the defendants.
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to default judgment before properly serving the defendants.
- Whether plaintiff had satisfied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) requirements for serving the United States and federal defendants.
- Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants who had not been properly served.
Holdings
- Plaintiff did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) because, although he mailed the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney General, he did not show that he personally served the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada or mailed the papers to that office's civil-process clerk.
- The court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they had not been properly served under Rule 4.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings or default judgment because the motions were filed before proper service of process and before the defendants' response obligations began.
- The court did not dismiss the action at that time, but warned that failure to timely serve the United States could require dismissal without prejudice or an order allowing service within a specified time.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…