Hinojosa v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID RAY HINOJOSA,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:25-cv-00390-KG-KRS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Hinojosa’s motion for default
judgment, Doc. 18, and Defendants’ response, Doc. 22. For the reasons below, the motion is
denied.
I. Background
This case arises from an incident which occurred in April 2022, when a United States
Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) employee operating a government vehicle failed to stop at
a red light and collided with Plaintiff’s car. Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff brings negligence claims under
the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and New Mexico law. Id. at 4–6.
Plaintiff filed this action on February 22, 2025. Id. at 1. On May 23, 2025, a private
process server mailed the summons and complaint by certified mail to the United States
Attorney’s Office (“USAO”). Doc. 18-1 at 1. Five days later, Defendants’ counsel notified
Plaintiff by letter that service was defective because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) does
not permit service by mail to the USAO’s general address. Doc. 22 at 2. Plaintiff thereafter
mailed the summons and complaint by certified mail to the USAO’s designated civil-process
clerk, who confirmed receipt on September 15, 2025. See Doc. 18-2.
Case 2:25-cv-00390-KG-KRS Document 34 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On October 31, 2025, the Chief Judge of the District of New Mexico stayed all civil cases
in the district due to the federal government shutdown. Doc. 22 at 4. In this case, the Honorable
Jerry Ritter extended Defendants’ deadline to respond to 21 days “after the end” of the
shutdown. Doc. 17. President Donald Trump signed appropriations legislation on the evening
of November 12, 2025, restoring funding for the Department of Justice. Doc. 22 at 4. The
USAO resumed operations the following day. Id. Shortly thereafter, the Chief Judge entered an
order extending all civil deadlines in the District of New Mexico by 43 days. Id. at 4–5.
On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(d), arguing that Defendants failed to timely appear or otherwise respond to the
Complaint. Doc. 18. Later that day, however, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 20.
II. Legal Standard
“Entry of a default judgment involves a two-step process.” Meyers v. Pfizer, 581 Fed.
Appx. 708, 710 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)–(b). “The first step involves the
court clerk’s decision whether to enter a default.” Meyers, 581 Fed. Appx. at 710. Next, “the
plaintiff can ask the court to grant a default judgment.” Id. “[D]efault judgments are not favored
by courts,” but “considerable deference is given the trial judge’s determination.” Katzson Bros.
v. U.S. E.P.A., 839 F.2d 1396, 1399 (10th Cir. 1988); see also Nikwei v. Ross Sch. of Aviation,
822 F.2d 939, 941 (10th Cir. 1987) (trial court has “a great deal of latitude” in “exercising [its]
discretion” in entering default judgment). When the opposing party is the United States, default
judgment may be entered only if the claimant “establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence
that satisfies the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d).
Service on the United States is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), which
requires a party to either “deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United
Case 2:25-cv-00390-KG-KRS Document 34 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
States attorney for the district where the action is brought” or “send a copy of each by registered
or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office.” The rule further
requires the party to “send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General
of the United States at Washington, D.C.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)–(B). The United States
must answer a complaint within 60 days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2).
III. Analysis
To start, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. Rule 55 establishes a two-step process: first,
entry of default under Rule 55(a), and second, default judgment under Rule 55(b). Because the
Clerk has not entered default, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is premature.
But even if Plaintiff’s motion were procedurally proper, the Court would decline to enter
default judgment. Nikwei, 822 F.2d at 941. Plaintiff did not effectuate service until September
15, 2025. Plaintiff’s initial service attempt in May 2025 was ineffective because he mailed the
summons and complaint to the USAO’s general address, rather than to the civil-process clerk.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)–(B). Therefore, service was effectuated when the civil-process
clerk received the certified mailing, on September 15, 2025. See Doc. 18-2.
Additionally, the Court declines to treat the Government’s response as untimely given the
confusion surrounding the conclusion of the shutdown. President Trump signed the
appropriations legislation on the evening of November 12, 2025, and the USAO did not resume
normal operations until the following day. Doc. 22 at 4–5. It is therefore unclear whether the
shutdown ended on November 12 or November 13—and, in turn, whether the Government’s
response deadline fell on December 3 or December 4. Moreover, the Chief Judge extended all
district deadlines by 43 days, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss fell within that extension. Id.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the shutdown’s end and the overlap between the applicable
Case 2:25-cv-00390-KG-KRS Document 34 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
orders, the Court declines to treat the Government’s filing as untimely. Finally, there is no
indication that Plaintiff suffered any prejudice because of the delayed filing.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Doc. 18, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 2:25-cv-00390-KG-KRS Document 34 Filed 05/27/26 Page 4 of 4