Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In July 2026, the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive relief in the Central District of California against David Allen, the Chargé d'Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia, and Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, both sued in their official capacities. Summonses issued the same day. The plaintiff later filed a proof of service stating that the summons and complaint had been mailed to both defendants, and to the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, by certified mail with return receipt requested. Attached were website tracking printouts showing delivery or pickup of the packages in July 2026, but no signed return receipts.
The defendants did not respond by their October 19, 2026 response deadline and have not appeared. After the plaintiff filed a status report describing efforts to obtain a response, the Clerk entered default on October 30, 2026. The court then issued this in-chambers order to show cause. Under Rule 4(m), a defendant must be served within 90 days of filing, and absent good cause the court must either dismiss without prejudice or order that service be made within a specified time. Because the defendants are federal officers sued only in their official capacities, Rule 4(i)(2) requires service on the United States and mailing of a copy to each officer by registered or certified mail.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not dismiss the case or address the merits of the mandamus claims. It concluded, on the present record, that the plaintiff had not shown proper service and directed him to show cause. As to the individual defendants, the court identified two problems. First, certified mail is mail for which the sender requests a receipt signed by the addressee, yet the plaintiff supplied no returned or signed receipt; tracking showing pickup at a post office or mail room does not fill that gap, and the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a mail room was an authorized agent. Second, a State Department regulation, 22 C.F.R. § 172.2(a), provides that only the Office of the Executive Secretariat may accept summonses or complaints for the Department or its employees, yet the plaintiff mailed the papers to the Office of the Legal Adviser.
As to the United States, the court explained that Rule 4(i)(1) requires service on both the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the district, and that certified-mail service requires the addressee or an authorized agent to sign the return receipt. Because no receipts were provided for either recipient, service on the United States was also not shown, even though the plaintiff's status report said the local U.S. Attorney's Office had been served and counsel's staff had corresponded with that office about a response. The plaintiff must respond by November 27, 2026. A proper response that automatically discharges the order is either a document explaining why service was proper, or a request to set aside the entry of default under Rule 55(c) and extend the service deadline. If no timely response is filed, the action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders under Rule 41.
Key Takeaways
- Certified-mail service on federal officers and the United States requires a signed return receipt, not merely website tracking showing delivery or pickup.
- A plaintiff suing State Department employees must direct service to the office designated in 22 C.F.R. § 172.2(a), not to the Office of the Legal Adviser.
- Delivery to a mail room does not establish service unless the plaintiff proves the mail room was the addressee's authorized agent.
- Entry of default did not stop the court from examining service, and the order treats a request to set aside default and extend the service deadline as an acceptable response.
- This is an order to show cause, not a dismissal, and any later dismissal for noncompliance would be without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order is a reminder that suits against federal officers in their official capacities carry layered service requirements: the United States must be served through both the local U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General, and the officers must also receive copies by registered or certified mail. Unsigned tracking records are an unreliable substitute for return receipts, and agency-specific regulations such as the State Department's can add further requirements.
This is a non-final, in-chambers minute order, not a published opinion, so it carries no precedential weight. Open questions are whether the plaintiff can show valid service, obtain relief from default and an extension of the service period, or face dismissal without prejudice.