David Rodrigues, Plaintiff-appellant, v. State of Nevada Industrial Insurance System, Defendant-appellee, 972 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

David Rodrigues appeals pro se the district court's grant of the Nevada State Industrial Insurance System's ("SIIS") motion to quash his complaint for defective service of process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d) (6) requires that service of process upon a state or governmental organization be effectuated (1) "by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the chief executive officer thereof ... or [ (2) ] by serving the summons and complaint in the manner prescribed by the law of that state for the service of the summons or other like process upon any such defendant." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (6).

Here, SIIS is a state agency. Northern Nevada Assoc. of Injured Workers v. SIIS, 807 P.2d 728, 731 (Nev.1991); see also Austin Roofing v. SIIS, 741 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Nev. 1990), aff'd, 930 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished memorandum). Accordingly, proper service can only be accomplished as outlined in Rule 4(d) (6). See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1346 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, actual notice of the action is not sufficient. Id. Thus, in order to properly serve SIIS, Rodrigues was required to either deliver the summons and the complaint to "chief executive officer" of the SIIS¹  or, under the Nevada statute, serve the summons and the complaint on the secretary of the state of Nevada. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (6); Nev.Rev.Stat. 41.031(2). Rodrigues, however, attempted to serve SIIS via mail sent to its office in Carson City. This service was deficient, and thus the district court did not err in granting SIIS's motion to quash.

AFFIRMED.