Azucena v. Runjyin
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-03234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Azucena v. Runjyin, Judge Gilliam dismissed the pro se action without prejudice because the defendant was not served or identified.
Caleb J. Azucena’s lawsuit against the unidentified defendant identified as Runjyin was dismissed without prejudice; the case was closed, but Azucena may seek to reopen it after determining the defendant’s identity.
What happened
Caleb J. Azucena sued Runjyin in a constitutional civil-rights case after alleging that an airport agent touched him during a pat-down. The court had earlier found that allegation sufficient to state a plausible claim.
The United States Marshal could not serve Runjyin because the agency could not locate an employee with that name. Azucena later gave possible spellings, agencies, and citizenship information, but did not provide enough information to identify and locate the defendant.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice under the rule requiring service within 90 days. The court entered judgment for Runjyin, closed the case, and stated that Azucena could file a motion to reopen after determining the defendant’s identity.
The detailed version
- Azucena v. Runjyin · No. 4:23-cv-03234
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 20, 2024
Background
Caleb J. Azucena filed this pro se Bivens action, a constitutional claim against a federal officer, on June 29, 2023. He alleged that on February 6, 2022, a United States Customs and Border Protection agent identified as Runjyin grabbed his penis and buttock multiple times during a pat-down at San Francisco International Airport. The court previously screened the complaint and found that this allegation stated a facially plausible claim.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve the complaint and service order on Runjyin at the Customs and Border Protection San Francisco field office. The Marshal later filed an unexecuted summons, reporting that the office could not locate an employee with Runjyin as either a first or last name.
The court gave Azucena a deadline to provide enough information for the Marshal to locate and serve Runjyin, later extending that deadline to June 17, 2024. Azucena filed a document stating that the defendant’s last name might be Runjyin, Runyin, or Runjin; that the defendant might be a Customs and Border Protection agent or a Transportation Security Administration agent; and that the defendant might be a citizen of Indonesia or California. The court determined that the filing did not appear to be an amended complaint and did not make allegations against Runjyin.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because more than 90 days had passed since the complaint was filed and Azucena had neither served Runjyin nor provided sufficient information for the Marshal to do so. The court stated that the case could not proceed unless Azucena identified the defendant and that the court was not required to identify the individual for him.
The dismissal was without prejudice to Azucena filing a motion to reopen the action after determining Runjyin’s identity. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Runjyin and against Azucena, terminate pending motions as moot, and close the case. A footnote stated that Azucena might be able to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain information needed to identify the federal employee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.