JIANTAO ZHAO
v.
DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a clerk's default.
[1] A pro se litigant is subject to all applicable rules of court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including requirements for memoranda of legal authority in motions.
[2] Entry of clerk's default against a defendant requires the court to determine that the defendant was properly served with process.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“before a Clerk's default can be entered against a defendant, the Court must determine that the defendant was properly served”
Court citing United States v. Donald for the proposition that proper service is a prerequisite to entry of clerk's default
The pro se plaintiff filed a motion for a clerk's default against the defendants. The motion failed to include a memorandum of legal authority and did…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rule 3.01(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Clerk’s Default. Doc. No. 11. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice. First, the motion fails to contain a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(b) – citations to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) without explanation do not suffice. Relatedly, the motion fails to adequately address, with citation to legal authority, that service of process on Defendants was proper and, specifically, that service by certified mail on “Mail Clerk (Authorized Agent)” at the various offices listed in the proofs of service was sufficient to effect service on these Defendants under governing law. See Doc. Nos. 8-10. See generally United States
v. Donald, No. 3:09-cv-147-J-32HTS, 2009 WL 1810357, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2009) (before a Clerk’s default can be entered against a defendant, the Court must determine that the defendant was properly served). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, which must include a memorandum of legal authority establishing that service of process on Defendants was proper under applicable law. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 24, 2025.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties