Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Delgado v. Chertoff

July 27, 2007

IVANETE QING DELGADO PLAINTIFF
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; EMILIO GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DAVID ANGOTTI, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, USCIS MEMPHIS SUB OFFICE; AND ROBERT S. MUELLER III, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Leon Holmes United States District Judge

ORDER

Ivanete Qing Delgado filed her complaint against Michael Chertoff, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; Emilio Gonzalez, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; David Angotti, Officer-in-Charge, USCIS Memphis Sub Office; and Robert S. Mueller III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on March 2, 2007. It appears that she may have served summons and complaint on the four persons named as defendants, but Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that she must also deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought, and she must send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia. The record does not reflect that she has done so.

Rule 4(m) provides, in pertinent part:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

More than 120 days have elapsed since the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff has not effected service in the manner required by Rule 4(i). Therefore, the Court hereby gives notice that this action will be dismissed unless within 30 days of entry of this order the plaintiff shows good cause why the action should not be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2007.

20070727

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.