Castillo v. United States of America

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DIEGO CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No. 25-628 LF/JFR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default, filed
December 8, 2025. Doc. 5. As set forth below, the motion (Doc. 5) is not well taken and is
therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff filed his ‘Complaint for Damages’ (“Complaint”) against the United States of
America (“Defendant”), the sole defendant, on July 3, 2025. Doc. 1. The Clerk of the Court
issued summons on July 18, 2025. See Doc. 3 at 1; Doc. 4 at 1; accord FED. R. CIV. P.
4(a)(1)(F)-(G). On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed proof of service (i.e., ‘Certified Mail Receipt’
dated July 24, 2025) upon the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New
Mexico. Doc. 3. That same day, Plaintiff also filed proof of electronic transmission (i.e., an
email dated July 23, 2025)) of the summons (Doc. 1-3), Complaint (Doc. 1), and ‘Civil Cover
Sheet’ (Doc. 1-1) to the Office of the Attorney General of the United States. See Doc. 4 at 5.
Proper service is a jurisdictional prerequisite to litigation. Jenkins v. City of Topeka, 136
F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 1998). Without proper service, a court lacks personal jurisdiction
over a defendant. Okla. Radio Assocs. v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 969 F.2d 940, 943 (10th Cir. 1992).
Similarly, “[i]t is axiomatic that service of process must be effective under the Federal Rules of
Case 1:25-cv-00628-LF-JFR Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Civil Procedure before a default or a default judgment may be entered against a defendant.”
Dewey v. City of Topeka, No. 97-4037, 1997 WL 833300 (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 1997) (quoting Md.
State Firemen’s Ass’n v. Chaves, 166 F.R.D. 353, 354 (D. Md. 1996)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The burden of proof is on Plaintiff to establish the adequacy of service of process.
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Oaklawn Apts., 959 F.2d 170, 174 (10th Cir. 1992).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the United States can be served in the
manner prescribed under Rule 4(i). Rule 4(i) states, in relevant part:
(1) United States. To serve the United States, a party must:
(A) [either]
(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United
States attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an
assistant United States attorney or clerical employee whom the United
States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk—or
(ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-
process clerk at the United States attorney’s office;
(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney
General of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and
(C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the
United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the
agency or officer.
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(A)-(C) (emphasis added).
The present case does not “challenge[] an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the
United States,” so Plaintiff need not meet the fulfill subsection (C). See FED. R. CIV. P.
4(i)(1)(C). But seeing as the sole Defendant is the United States of America, see Doc. 1 at 1,
Plaintiff must satisfy subsections (A) and (B), see FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(A)-(B). Espinoza v.
United States, 52 F.3d 838, 839 n.2 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i) requires delivery of the
Case 1:25-cv-00628-LF-JFR Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3

3
summons and complaint to the United States Attorney and to the Attorney General in order to
properly effect service upon the United States.”).
Plaintiff has fulfilled subsection (A), based on the ‘Certified Mail Receipt’ of service to
the United States Attorney General of New Mexico, dated July 24, 2025. Doc. 3 at 3; accord
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(A). But Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate compliance with subsection
(B). Compare FED R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(B), with Doc. 4. Plaintiff’s proof of service upon the Office
of the Office of the Attorney General of the United States shows that the summons (Doc. 1-3),
Complaint (Doc. 1), and ‘Civil Cover Sheet’ (Doc. 1-1) were electronically transmitted via email
on July 23, 2025. See Doc. 4 at 5. Yet, subsection (B) clearly requires that “the Attorney
General of the United States at Washington, D.C.” be served via “registered or certified mail . . .
.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1)(B). Because Rule 4 does not permit service by email without prior
authorization from the Court, see generally FED. R. CIV. P. 4, Plaintiff has failed to complete
proper service of process on Defendant. See Egbune v. Baum, No. 23-cv-02830, 2024 WL
1374905, at *2 n.3 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2024) (noting insufficiency of emailed “service”).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court further ORDERS that, no later than Monday, December 22, 2025,
Plaintiff shall show good cause for failure to effectuate proper service. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m);
Espinoza, 52 F.3d at 841 (recognizing discretionary authority to grant extension of time under
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) but holding that “district courts must still preliminarily examine whether
good cause for the delay exists.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
JOHN F. ROBBENHAAR
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00628-LF-JFR Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3