Henderson v. United States

517 U.S. 654 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, a merchant mariner, was injured while working aboard a vessel owned and operated by D. On April 8, 1993, after exhausting administrative remedies, P filed a seaman's personal injury action pursuant to the Suits in Admiralty Act. Under that Act, suits 'may be brought . . . within two years after the cause of action arises.' §745. P brought his action well within that time period. Having timely filed his complaint, P attempted to follow the Federal Rules on service. It is undisputed that the following Rules, and nothing in the Suits in Admiralty Act, furnished the immediately relevant instructions. Rule 4(a) (1988) provided: 'Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons and deliver the summons to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney, who shall be responsible for prompt service of the summons and a copy of the complaint.' Rule 4(b) provided: 'The summons shall be signed by the clerk, [and] be under the seal of the court.' Rule 4(d) stated: 'The summons and complaint shall be served together.' Problems occurred in obtaining the summons required by Rule 4. P's counsel requested the appropriate summons forms and file-stamped copies of the complaint on April 8, 1993, the day he filed the complaint. But the court clerk did not respond immediately. Counsel eventually obtained the forms on April 21, 1993, and completed and returned them to the clerk. On May 4, counsel received the summons mailed to him from the clerk's office, and on May 19, counsel sent the summons and complaint, by certified mail, to the Attorney General, who received them on May 25. On May 25, Henderson's counsel forwarded the summons and complaint, as received from the clerk to a 'constable' with a request to effect service. On June 1, the constable's office returned the documents, informing counsel that the summons was not in proper form, because it lacked the court's seal. Counsel thereupon wrote to the court clerk requesting new summons forms with the appropriate court seal. Counsel repeated this request on August 19; ultimately, on August 25, P's counsel received the properly sealed summons. P requested the constable's service and, on August 30, moved for an extension of time to serve the United States Attorney. The court extended the time for service until September 15. The United States Attorney received personal service of the summons and complaint, in proper form, on September 3, 1993. the Attorney General received the complaint 47 days after filing suit, and the United States Attorney was personally served 148 days after. On November 17, 1993, D moved to dismiss the action. D has not asserted any prejudice to the presentation of its defense stemming from the delayed service of the summons and complaint. And the manner and timing of service, it appears beyond debate, satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. D claimed that §2 of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. App. §742, which provides in part: P shall forthwith serve a copy of his complaint... D argued that P failed to serve process 'forthwith,' as required by §742 which in turn deprived the District Court of subject-matter jurisdiction because §742 describes the conditions of the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity. The Holmberg case held that the §742 service 'forthwith' requirement 'is a condition of D's waiver of sovereign immunity and, thus, a jurisdictional prerequisite.' The District Court dismissed P's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. P appealed.