RHAWN JOSEPH, PH.D. v. U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, et al.
- Wise
- 5:25-cv-02773
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rhawn Joseph v. U.S. Dept of Justice, Judge Wise ordered the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for defective service.
The self-represented plaintiff, who must respond within 14 days and properly serve the defendants to avoid possible dismissal; the named defendants are affected by the service requirements.
What happened
In RHAWN JOSEPH, PH.D. v. U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, et al., the self-represented plaintiff sued several dozen government officials and entities. The court found no filing showing that any defendant had been properly served within the required 90 days.
The court also said the plaintiff had not shown compliance with the special rules for serving the federal government. It ordered him to explain in writing within 14 days why the case should not be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Judge Noél Wise also denied no motion but instructed the plaintiff that electronic filing could be used for later documents only after proper service of the defendants. The plaintiff was directed to connect his electronic-filing account to the case so he would receive court notices.
The detailed version
- RHAWN JOSEPH, PH.D. v. U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, et al. · No. 5:25-cv-02773
- Wise
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
The complaint was filed on March 24, 2025, against several dozen government officials and entities. Summonses were issued the same day. The plaintiff is self-represented.
Service of process
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to serve each defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint within the required period. The rule generally requires service within 90 days after filing. The plaintiff had not filed proof showing that any defendant was served within that period. He also had not shown that he followed Rule 4(i), which sets out procedures for serving the federal government.
The opinion states that the United States Attorney’s Office notified the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, and May 21, 2025, that service was improper. It also states that Federal Express was not registered or certified mail under Rule 4(i)(1), so the plaintiff could not lawfully use FedEx to serve the defendants.
Order to show cause
The court ordered the plaintiff to file a written response within 14 days explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve the defendants. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
Electronic filing and service
The plaintiff also asked for permission to file and serve all documents electronically through the court’s electronic filing system. The court explained that the rules for serving the complaint differ from the rules for serving later documents. The plaintiff must first serve each defendant under Rule 4. After that, he may use the electronic filing system to serve documents that do not begin the case or assert a claim for relief.
The court directed the plaintiff to connect his existing electronic-filing account to this case so he would receive electronic notices. As a one-time courtesy, the courtroom deputy would email him the order. The court stated that it would thereafter presume he received court filings and notifications transmitted electronically.
Disposition
Judge Noél Wise issued an order to show cause and directed the plaintiff to respond within 14 days. The court did not enter a dismissal in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.