Azucena v. Runjyin
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-03234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Caleb J. Azucena v. Runjyin, Judge Gilliam ordered service information within 28 days or warned of dismissal without prejudice.
Caleb J. Azucena must complete service on Runjyin or provide information that allows the United States Marshal to do so.
What happened
In Caleb J. Azucena v. Runjyin, the court said the United States Marshal could not serve defendant Runjyin because Customs and Border Protection could not locate an employee with that name. The case was brought without a lawyer, and the court had previously found that the complaint plausibly alleged a claim against Runjyin.
The court ordered Azucena either to serve Runjyin within 28 days or provide enough information to identify and locate Runjyin so the Marshal could complete service. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action against Runjyin without prejudice and dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Azucena v. Runjyin · No. 4:23-cv-03234
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 17, 2024
Background
Caleb J. Azucena filed this action without a lawyer on or about June 29, 2023. The court had screened the operative complaint and found that it stated a facially plausible claim under Bivens against United States Customs and Border Protection agent Runjyin. The court then ordered the United States Marshal to serve Runjyin at the Customs and Border Protection San Francisco field office, with a courtesy copy sent to the agency's San Francisco associate chief counsel.
Service problem
The Marshal filed an unexecuted summons. According to the Marshal, a supervisor at the Customs and Border Protection office searched the employee database and reported that there was no officer with Runjyin as either a first or last name. The court said Azucena had not provided enough information for the Marshal to locate and serve Runjyin.
Order
The court ordered Azucena, within 28 days, either to effect service on Runjyin or to submit sufficient information to identify and locate Runjyin so that the Marshal could serve the defendant. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action against Runjyin without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(a). The order required action by Azucena; it did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.