Zhang v. Garland
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-04177
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Zhang v. Garland, Judge Menendez denied Zhang’s default-judgment motion because default was not entered and service was incomplete, extending the service deadline.
Zhihua Zhang’s default-judgment request was denied. The order gave him until May 12, 2025, to complete and document service on the federal defendants and warned that the complaint may be dismissed against a defendant who is not properly served by that date, unless he shows good cause.
What happened
Zhang v. Garland concerns Zhihua Zhang’s request for a court order requiring federal officials to decide his application to become a lawful permanent resident. Zhang asked the court to enter judgment because he said the officials had not responded to his complaint.
The court denied the request for two reasons. First, the Clerk had not entered the officials’ default, which must happen before a judge can enter default judgment. Second, Zhang had not shown that he properly served the officials and the United States under the rules for serving federal officials; the record showed that he mailed summonses but not the complaint and did not show service on the United States Attorney’s office.
Judge Menendez denied the default-judgment motion and extended the deadline to complete service to May 12, 2025. The order warned that the complaint may be dismissed against any defendant who is not properly served by then, unless Zhang shows good cause, and referred Zhang to a volunteer-attorney project.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. Garland · No. 0:24-cv-04177
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 3, 2025
Background
Zhihua Zhang filed this case seeking a writ of mandamus—a court order requiring government officials to act—directing the defendants to adjudicate his Form I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Zhang then moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, asserting that the defendants had been served and had not answered or otherwise responded within 60 days.
Reasons for the ruling
The court explained that Rule 55 default proceedings have two stages. First, under Rule 55(a), the plaintiff must seek entry of default from the Clerk after a defendant fails to respond. Second, under Rule 55(b), the plaintiff may ask the district court to enter default judgment. Because the Clerk had not entered default against any defendant, the court held that Zhang’s motion sought the second-stage relief before the required first stage had occurred.
The court also concluded that Zhang had not shown legally effective service of process. Service on federal officials sued in their official capacities requires service on the United States and delivery or mailing of the summons and complaint to the officials. The proof of service showed that Zhang mailed a summons to each defendant’s official address by certified mail, but it did not show that he sent the complaint to those officials. The record also did not show that he delivered or mailed the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Minnesota as required by Rule 4(i).
Order
The court DENIED Zhang’s motion for default judgment. It extended the time to complete service on the defendants until Monday, May 12, 2025. The court stated that, if Zhang failed to show effective proof of service on a defendant by that deadline, the complaint may be dismissed against that defendant without prejudice for failure to prosecute unless Zhang showed good cause. The court also stated that it would separately refer Zhang to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project for an opportunity to consult a volunteer attorney.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.