1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER MICHAEL DIRIENZO, Case No. 2:25-cv-1028-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS

14 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 27, 29) 16 17 Pending before the Court are the following miscellaneous motions filed by Plaintiff 18 Alexander Michael Dirienzo, who is proceeding without counsel in this action:1 (1) motion 19 for default judgment as to Defendants Shirley Weber, Office of Risk and Insurance 20 Management of California, Rob Bonta, Ricardo Lara, and Judge Timothy Healy (ECF 21 No. 27); and (2) administrative motion for alternative service (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff’s 22 administrative motion is submitted without a hearing pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 23 233(c). 24 On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff is requesting the Court enter 26 default judgment against Defendants Shirley Weber, Office of Risk and Insurance 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 Management of California, Rob Bonta, Ricardo Lara, and Judge Timothy Healy. Id. at 1- 2 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, entry of default must be obtained prior 3 to entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Default may be entered against a 4 party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought who fails to plead or 5 otherwise defend against the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Here, Defendants Shirley 6 Weber, Rob Bonta, Ricardo Lara, and Judge Timothy Healy have not had default 7 entered against them, which is a requirement prior to seeking default judgment. In 8 addition, Defendants Weber, Bonta, and Lara have already appeared in this action. See 9 Docket. Further, the Office of Risk and Insurance Management of California is not a 10 named defendant in this action and Plaintiff cannot seek default against a party not 11 named as a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). See SAC (ECF No. 12 11). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice. 13 On July 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service. (ECF No. 29.) 14 Plaintiff is requesting permission to serve defendants by certified mail pursuant to 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) in lieu of personal service. Id. Rule 4(c) requires both 16 the summons and copy of the complaint be served on each defendant—by any person 17 over 18 who is not a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Service requirements set forth in Rule 18 4(i) are applicable to the United States, its agencies, corporations, officers, or 19 employees. Here, Plaintiff has not named the United States, its agencies, corporations, 20 officers, or employees in his complaint. See SAC. Plaintiff has also not established that 21 he has exhausted Rule 4’s requirements for service to show why alternative service is 22 warranted here for defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service 23 (ECF No. 29) is denied. 24 Finally, Plaintiff is warned to carefully review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 25 the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California,2 and Judge Kim’s Civil Standing 26

27 2 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California are available on the district court’s website: 28 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/. 1 || Orders. Pro se litigants are expected to know and comply with the rules of civil 2 || procedure. See American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 3 | 1108 (9th Cir. 2000); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) □□□□□□ 4 | have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be 5 || interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”). 6 ORDER 7 In conclusion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 27) is DENIED without 9 prejudice; and 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for alternative service (ECF No. 29) is DENIED. 11 | Dated: September 4, 2025 C ii $ \U 12 CHI SOO KIM 43 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 | 4, irito28.25 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | ° Judge Kim’s Civil Standing Orders are available on Judge Kim’s webpage on the district court’s website: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all- 28 | judges/united-states-magistrate-judge-chi-soo-kim-csk/.