Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

James B. Packard appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) for failure to serve his complaint within 120 days after filing pursuant to Rule 4(j).^1/ We review for an abuse of discretion, see Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted), and we affirm.

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j).

The FSLIC and FDIC are United States agencies. See Acron Investments, Inc. v. Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Co., 363 F.2d 236, 239-40 (9th Cir. 1966); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. David M. Glickman, 450 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1971). Service of a summons and complaint upon an agency or officer of the United States must be effected in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (5), which requires service on the United States as well as upon the officer or agency. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (5). Service upon the United States is made (1) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought, and (2) by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (4).

A pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with the personal service requirement under Rule 4(d) does not require dismissal of the complaint if (a) the party to be personally served received actual notice, (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice from the defect in service, (c) there is justifiable excuse for the failure to serve properly, and (d) the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if the complaint were dismissed. See Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 (9th Cir. 1984).

Packard failed to follow the procedures for service upon the United States as required by Rule 4(d) (4). First, he failed to personally deliver process to the United States Attorney. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (4); Whale v. United States, 792 F.2d 951 953 (9th Cir. 1986). Second, he failed to send a copy of the summons and complaint to the Attorney General by registered or certified mail. Since Packard failed to properly serve defendants within 120 days after filing the complaint, the action must be dismissed absent a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j). Packard contends that he properly served both defendants by certified mail on February 4, 1988 pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1818(4) (FDIC) and 12 U.S.C. § 1725(c) (4) (FSLIC). These statutes do not waive the requirements of making valid service under Rule 4(d). Although Packard received timely notice of the defects in his service, he failed to correct them, relying on his theory that service was proper. Ignorance of the governing rules of procedure do not constitute good cause. See Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987); Whale, 792 F.2d at 953.

Moreover, because Packard has not demonstrated a justifiable excuse for failure to properly serve, dismissal was appropriate. See Borzeka, 739 F.2d at 447.

AFFIRMED.