# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · May 21, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377080

## Case

- **Full name:** James R. Hefflin v. United States Merit Systems Protection Board et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** May 21, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377080

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-03081-AH-(DTBx) Date May 21, 2026
Title James R. Hefflin v. United States Merit Systems Protection Board et al.

Present: The Honorable Anne Hwang, United States District Judge

Yolanda Skipper —__———NotReported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff James R. Hefflin (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, and on April 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants United States Merits Systems Protection
Board, Sarah Snyder in her official capacity as Chief Administrative
Judge/Attorney Examiner, and Cristoph Riddle in his official capacity as
Administrative Judge/Attorney Examiner (“Defendants”). Dkt. No. 15. On April
23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service containing declarations that each
defendant was served with the summons and FAC.
The Court finds that the Proof of Service is deficient. “A federal court does
not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served
properly under” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v.
Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988).
To serve a United States agency or corporation, or a United States
officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, a party must serve
the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the
complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation,
officer, or employee.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2).

To serve the United States, a party must:

(A)(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).

Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence demonstrating satisfaction of Rule
4(i)’s requirements. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to
show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of proper service. Failure to do so will result in
the dismissal of this action without prejudice. As an alternative to a written
response by Plaintiff, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following as
an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause, on or before the above date,
as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently:

• A renewed Proof of Service setting forth compliance with Rule 4; or
• A response to the FAC by Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377080. Public record. Not legal advice.