Walker v. Youth Sports Index Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Vernon L Walker,
Plaintiff,
v.
Youth Sports Index Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00004-TUC-MSA
ORDER
On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff Vernon Walker moved for leave to complete service
of process on Defendant Andre Patterson through alternative means. (Doc. 29.) The Court
granted leave based on its finding that Patterson appeared to be evading service. (Doc. 30.)
The Court further found:
Plaintiff’s proposed means of alternative service—posting a copy of the
service packet on the front door of Patterson’s home, mailing a copy to the
same address, and emailing a copy to an email address that Patterson has
used to communicate with Plaintiff—is reasonably calculated to provide
Patterson with actual notice of this lawsuit, as his physical presence has been
confirmed at the residential address and he is known to have used the email
address.
(Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff followed the instructions set forth above and then, on January 14, 2026,
filed a notice that service had been executed. (Doc. 31.) The following day, the Clerk of
Court modified the docket entry for the notice to reflect that service was unexecuted. (See
Docket Entry No. 31.) Plaintiff’s counsel contacted the Clerk of Court’s office and was
Case 4:25-cv-00004-MSA Document 37 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
informed that the modification was made because Plaintiff’s email to Patterson did not go
through. (See Doc. 31-1 (“The email account that you tried to reach does not exist.”).)
Counsel was advised to present the matter to the Court, which he has done in the currently
pending motion to compel. Plaintiff requests that the Clerk of Court be ordered to change
the docket filing event from “service unexecuted” back to “service executed.”
The Court will grant the motion. The Clerk of Court’s role in relation to service of
process is ministerial. This role involves applying clear rules to clear facts. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(a), (b) (listing the requirements for a summons and stating that the Clerk “must” issue
the summons when the requirements are satisfied); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (stating that when
a plaintiff shows “by affidavit or otherwise” that a defendant “has failed to plead or
otherwise defend,” the Clerk “must” enter the defendant’s default). In contrast, the decision
whether service was legally sufficient involves applying legal standards and making factual
findings, which are functions reserved to judges. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) (providing
that a party can move to dismiss a complaint for “insufficient service of process”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 55(c), 60(b)(4) (providing that a party can move to set aside a default judgment on
the ground that “the judgment is void”); S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d
1161, 1164–65 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4)
when there is “insufficient service of process”). Thus, the Clerk of Court had no power to
independently determine that service was not properly executed in this case. As such, and
because Plaintiff complied with the Order authorizing alternative service, the Court will
direct the Clerk of Court to modify the notice event to reflect that service of process was
executed.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 34) is granted. The Clerk
of Court is directed to modify Docket Entry No. 31’s filing event to reflect that service of
process has been executed on Defendant Andre Patterson.
Dated this 28th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00004-MSA Document 37 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 2