Missaghi v. Blinken
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-08601
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Simin Missaghi v. Antony Blinken, Judge Hixson ordered plaintiffs to explain by December 5, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of service.
Simin Missaghi and Maria Cristina Hajiamini, whose case was placed at risk of dismissal because the record contained no proof of service.
What happened
In Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al., Simin Missaghi and Maria Cristina Hajiamini asked the court to require the government to decide Hajiamini’s immigrant visa application.
The court found that no proof showed that the summons and complaint had been served on the defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 generally requires service within 90 days after filing a complaint.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the plaintiffs to explain in writing by December 5, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to complete service on time. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Missaghi v. Blinken · No. 3:24-cv-08601
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 21, 2025
Background
On December 1, 2024, Simin Missaghi and Maria Cristina Hajiamini filed a complaint seeking an order requiring the government to adjudicate Hajiamini’s immigrant visa application. The docket did not contain proof that the summons and complaint had been served.
Applicable Rule
The court explained that proper service of process is required before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which requires service according to the rule’s procedures; actual notice alone is not enough. Under Rule 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court must, after notice to the plaintiff, either dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order service within a specified time.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than December 5, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants within the required time. The order warned that failure to respond would be treated as an admission that the plaintiffs did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. Judge Thomas S. Hixson did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.