Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 28, 2019

Allums v. Department of Justice

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-04906
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Allums v. Department of Justice, Judge Rogers extended service time but denied requests for court service and a filing-fee refund.

Who this affects

Dennis Bruce Allums, the self-represented plaintiff, whose service deadline was extended but whose requests for court service and a filing-fee refund were denied; the Department of Justice and the other defendants, whose service deadline was extended.

What happened

Dennis Bruce Allums, representing himself, asked the court to pause proceedings for 60 days because he had been unable to serve the Department of Justice and other defendants. He also asked the court to serve the defendants and immediately refund his $400 filing fee.

The court said the deadline to serve the defendants was November 13, 2019, based on the 90-day service period. It explained that court-ordered service may be available to a plaintiff allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, but that the court would first have to review the complaint. The court found no legal authority for the requested service or fee refund.

The court granted in part and denied in part Allums’s motion: it extended the service deadline to December 13, 2019, and denied the requests for court service and a filing-fee refund. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Allums v. Department of Justice · No. 4:19-cv-04906
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Oct. 28, 2019

Background

Dennis Bruce Allums filed the complaint on August 15, 2019, and filed the motion at issue on October 17, 2019. He was representing himself. His motion sought three forms of relief: a 60-day continuance of all proceedings because he could not serve the defendants, service of the complaint by the court, and an immediate refund of the $400 filing fee.

Service deadline

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally gives a plaintiff 90 days after filing the complaint to serve the defendants. The court calculated Allums’s service deadline as November 13, 2019. It granted in part his request for additional time and extended the deadline to December 13, 2019.

Requests for court service and fee refund

The court denied the requests that it serve the defendants and refund the filing fee. It explained that, when a plaintiff has been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court may order the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint. Before doing so, however, the court must conduct an initial review to determine whether the complaint states a legally recognizable claim. The opinion further stated that Allums would need to show that he qualified to proceed without paying the filing fee before the court would conduct that review. The court found no legal authority to grant the second and third requests.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The service deadline was extended to December 13, 2019; the requests for court service and a filing-fee refund were denied. The order terminated the motion at Docket 4. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.