District of Columbia· 9/13/2007
Reading v. United States
Citations
- 506 F. Supp. 2d 13
- 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5977
- 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67412
- 2007 WL 2678329
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that, by effectuating service on a defendant personally, a pro se plaintiff violated Rule 4 requiring that service be made by any person who was not a party
- holding that, by effectuating service on a defendant personally via certified mail, a pro se plaintiff violated Rule 4 requiring that service be made by any person who was not a party
- finding that Rule 4 does not allow a pro se plaintiff to effectuate service by certified mail himself
- finding that Rule 4’s prohibition against service by a party extends to service by certified mail
- finding no error in granting a motion to set aside default judgment unaccompanied by a verified answer because a motion to dismiss had already been filed
- “[G]ood cause exists for vacatur when the defendant pleads a failure to effect service by the plaintiffs.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Urbina
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Clayton v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2013-03-21· cited 43×
- Smith v. KriegerD. Colorado· 2009-08-03· cited 26×
- Acree v. Republic of IraqDistrict of Columbia· 2009-09-30· cited 20×
- Williams v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for DcDistrict of Columbia· 2012-01-09· cited 17×
- Kornea v. J.S.D. Mgmt., Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2018-10-04· cited 15×
- Olson v. Federal Election CommissionD.C. Circuit· 2009-03-11· cited 15×
- Clark v. LynchD. Kansas· 2016-09-29· cited 5×
- McKean v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia· 2008-06-30· cited 4×
- Pollack v. DuffDistrict of Columbia· 2011-08-24· cited 3×
- Ojelade v. Unity Health Care, Inc.District of Columbia· 2013-08-27· cited 1×
- Olson v. Federal Election CommissionDistrict of Columbia· 2009-03-11
- Johnson-Richardson v. University of PhoenixDistrict of Columbia· 2020-02-04
- Ahmed v. GableDistrict of Columbia· 2023-09-25
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court· 2005-06-23· cited 3,107×
- David Nathaniel Jackson v. Malcolm Beech David Nathaniel Jackson v. Malcolm BeechD.C. Circuit· 1980-12-19· cited 609×
- Smalls, Eugene C. v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 2006-12-19· cited 321×
- Sammie G. Byrd v. Michael P.W. StoneSixth Circuit· 1996-08-26· cited 304×
- John C. Keegel v. Key West & Caribbean Trading Company, Inc.D.C. Circuit· 1980-05-02· cited 302×
- Thomas C. Fox v. Marion D. StricklandD.C. Circuit· 1988-01-22· cited 297×
- Luise Light v. Isabel WolfD.C. Circuit· 1987-04-17· cited 166×
- Thomas D. Powell v. United States Bureau of PrisonsD.C. Circuit· 1991-03-15· cited 116×
- Hall v. Central Intelligence AgencyD.C. Circuit· 2006-02-14· cited 104×
- Aqua Bar & Lounge, Inc. v. United States of America Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service and Joseph B. SaltzThird Circuit· 1976-07-07· cited 94×
- Yesudian Ex Rel. United States v. Howard UniversityD.C. Circuit· 2001-11-13· cited 83×
- Norman, John D. v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 2006-10-31· cited 80×
- Theodore L. Lombard v. United States of AmericaD.C. Circuit· 1982-09-14· cited 75×
- Ross v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia· 2006-11-10· cited 48×
- Owens v. Republic of SudanDistrict of Columbia· 2005-03-29· cited 32×
- Murphy v. Internal Revenue ServiceD.C. Circuit· 2007-07-03· cited 31×
- Gene Ham v. William French SmithD.C. Circuit· 1981-04-30· cited 31×
- Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, James Ricks v. Local 6, Washington Teachers' Union, Afl-CioD.C. Circuit· 1984-10-30· cited 27×
- Benvenuti v. Department of DefenseDistrict of Columbia· 1984-05-29· cited 21×
- Holt v. DavidsonDistrict of Columbia· 2006-07-31· cited 19×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.