Tannenbaum v. U.S. Department of Energy
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-05032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tannenbaum v. U.S. Department of Energy, Judge Halpern warned that improper service could lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Moshe Tannenbaum, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the order requires Tannenbaum to establish proper and timely service to avoid possible dismissal.
What happened
In Tannenbaum v. U.S. Department of Energy, Moshe Tannenbaum sued the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency without a lawyer. The court had directed him to serve each defendant with the summons and complaint within 90 days.
Tannenbaum told the court that he mailed copies of the summons and complaint to the defendants by certified mail. He attached photographs showing tracking information. The court explained that a party cannot serve the legal papers in the party’s own case, and found that Tannenbaum’s materials did not show that someone other than a party had completed service.
The court did not dismiss the case. Judge Halpern warned that Tannenbaum must prove that service is completed properly and on time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4; otherwise, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The court also referred him to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit for procedural assistance.
The detailed version
- Tannenbaum v. U.S. Department of Energy · No. 7:25-cv-05032
- Philip Halpern
- July 24, 2025
Background
Moshe Tannenbaum filed this action without a lawyer against the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and directed Tannenbaum to serve the summons and complaint on each defendant within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The Clerk issued the summonses on June 23, 2025, and mailed Tannenbaum an information package.
Service Attempt
Tannenbaum later notified the court that he had mailed copies of the summons and complaint to the defendants by certified mail. He attached photographs of the tracking information. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2) generally requires service to be made by a person who is not a party to the action. Rule 4(l)(1) requires proof of service. The court found that Tannenbaum’s letter and declaration did not sufficiently show that a nonparty had served the defendants, making the service insufficient under the federal rules.
Ruling and Warning
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, Judge Philip M. Halpern warned that Tannenbaum bears the burden of showing that service was validly completed. The court stated that failure to serve each defendant properly and on time under Rule 4 will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The court referred Tannenbaum to the Pro Se Intake Unit for procedural assistance.
Disposition
The order warns of a possible future dismissal; it does not itself grant or deny a motion or dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.