Azucena v. Runjyin
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-03234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Azucena v. Runjyin, Judge Gilliam denied the requested deadline extension but granted a shorter extension to complete service or provide identifying information.
Caleb J. Azucena must complete service on Runjyin or provide sufficient information to identify and locate Runjyin by June 17, 2024; otherwise, the action will be dismissed for failure to complete service.
What happened
Caleb J. Azucena sued Customs and Border Protection agent Runjyin in a Bivens action. The United States Marshal could not serve Runjyin because Customs and Border Protection reported that no employee had Runjyin as a first or last name. The court ordered Azucena to serve Runjyin or provide enough information to identify and locate the person.
Azucena asked for an extension until July 15, 2024. He said Runjyin was the name on the individual’s government-issued badge and that he had no means to comply with the court’s order. He did not explain why a two-month extension would allow him to complete service.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the request. He denied the extension until July 15 but granted an extension until June 17, 2024, for Azucena to complete service or provide sufficient identifying information. The court warned that failure to meet the new deadline would result in dismissal for failure to complete service.
The detailed version
- Azucena v. Runjyin · No. 4:23-cv-03234
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 15, 2024
Background
The opinion states that Caleb J. Azucena brought a Bivens action against United States Customs and Border Protection agent Runjyin. A Bivens action is a lawsuit seeking a remedy for alleged constitutional violations by a federal officer. The United States Marshal was unable to serve Runjyin. Customs and Border Protection told the Marshal that no employee had “Runjyin” as either a first or last name.
On April 22, 2024, the court ordered Azucena to do one of two things by May 19, 2024: complete service on Runjyin or provide enough information to identify and locate Runjyin so the Marshal could complete service. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to complete service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Request for Extension
Azucena asked for an extension until July 15, 2024. He stated that Runjyin was the name on the individual’s government-issued badge and that he had “no means” to comply with the order. The court noted that Azucena had not explained why granting a two-month extension would enable him to complete service, and that he remained unable to determine the individual’s correct name.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Azucena’s request. It denied the request for an extension until July 15, 2024, but granted an extension until June 17, 2024. By that date, Azucena had to either complete service on Runjyin or submit sufficient information to identify and locate Runjyin so that the Marshal could complete service. The court stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to complete service under Rule 4(m), without further notice. The order terminated Docket No. 13.
In a footnote, the court noted that Azucena said he had filed two state-court actions that were stayed while this case was pending, but had not identified their subject matter. The court cautioned that duplicative or repetitious litigation involving virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.