*1 v. UNITED STATES HENDERSON 20, 1996 Mаy March 1996 Decided Argued No. 95-232. *2 Stevens, Court, J., in which Ginsburg, opinion delivered the Scalia, J., Breyer, JJ., filed a Kennedy, Souter, joined. Scalia, Thomas, J., Kennedy, 672. joined, post, p. in which concurring opinion, O’Connor, Rehnquist, J.,C. J., dissenting opinion, filed a J., 673. joined, post, p. With cause for petitioner. A.
Richard Sheehy argued R. Breitbeil and Lauren were Kenneth him on the briefs L. Beck. the cause for L. Stewart argued
Malcolm were Solicitor General Days, him on the brief With States. Gen- Solicitor Assistant General Hunger, Deputy R. Lord. Robinson, and E. Bender, Timothy eral Michael Court. opinion of the delivered Ginsburg Justice proc- service period allowed concerns case This injured aboard by a seaman commenced action civil in a ess Recovery in such States. by the United owned a vessel U. S. C. Act, 46 Suits governed the Government’s broadly waives §741 seq., which et judgments); §742 (money immunity. See Civil interest). (costs 4 of summons dаys effect allows by the court. extendable period complaint, timely filed however, instructs The presented question “forthwith.” be made *3 of instruction “forthwith” Act’s the is whether by Rule. Federal the superseded been process has seq., §2071 Con- et S. C. Enabling 28Act, U. Rules the In procedure,” “practice and in matters that, gress ordered “[a]ll in laws and govern, 2072(a), § Rules Federal the effect,” force further of no shall be such rules with conflict law, arising federal 2072(b). § that, in actions holdWe limi- statute governing the with compliance in commenced gener- serving process are timing of and manner tations, the by controlled “procedure” matters nonjurisdictional ally Rules. Federal the
I mer Henderson, a Lloyd petitioner 1991, August On a working vessel aboard injured while was mariner, chant April 8,1993, On by States. operated owned a filed Henderson remedies, exhausting administrative after States, against the injury аction personal seaman’s 525, as Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. Suits to the pursuant Act, seq.1 Under App. et C. 46 U. S. amended, Act, Stat. Public Vessels invoked the also complaint 1 Henderson’s main Government seq. 781 et C. amended, 46 U. S. 1112, as governance exclusive falls under suit however, Henderson’s tains, employment claim arose Act, his because of the Suits for United States Brief vessel. Administration a Maritime aboard “may brought... be commenced Henderson of the kind suits §745. action arises.” years the cause after two within period. that time within brought his action well Henderson of Civil Procedure Rule suit, as Federal commenced He complaint the court.”2 “by filing simply instructs, attempted to complaint, Henderson timely his Having filed undisputed that It is on service. follow nothing following Rules, and Fed- immediately instructions. relevant furnished 4(a) (1988) “Upon provided: of Civil Rule eral a sum- issue shall forthwith complaint clerk filing of the plain- plaintiff or the the summons and deliver mons prompt serv- responsible for attorney, be who shall tiff’s complaint.” Rule copy the summons ice 4(b) by clerk, signed “The summons shall provided: 4(d) “The stated: the court.” [and] the seal be under together.”3 served shall be summons obtaining summons slips occurred A series ap- requested the counsel 4. Henderson’s required file-stamped copies forms propriate summons Henderson’s day filed April he 8, 1993, the complaint on ed.)). 1291(a) (1988 amended, C. U. S. App. 57 Stat. (citing n. 9 case, claims *4 In any assertion. this not contest does apparently Henderson (suits C. 46 S. See U. same way. proceed Acts the both under in accord- and proceed to subject “shall be Vessels Act Public the Act). of the Suits provisions” the with ance 2 to law, suffices complaint a filing by federal right a created In a suit on Conrail, 35, 39 U. S. 481 See West v. of limitations. the statute satisfy however, plain right, on statе-created suit In a federal-court run, state of limitations the statute before if must serve tiff Steel Walker Armco v. suit. state-court for a similar requires so law Merchants Ragan v. (1980) (reaffirming U. S. Corp., 446 (1949)). Hanna Co., But cf. U. 530 337 S. & Warehouse Transfer time (method service, (1965) distinguished as Plumer, Federal action, by governed is civil for commencement period rights). on state-created actions, suits based including all 4(a), (b), current Rules retained provisions of these The substance (c)(1). and immediately. clerk did respond the court But complaint. 21,1993, and forms on April obtained eventually Counsel coun- to the clerk. On May them returned completed of- the clerk’s to him from mailed the summons sel received the summons complaint, 19, counsel sent and on fice, May General,4 who received mail, Attorney certified by 25. on May them took longer. States Attorney local United on the
Service the summons forwarded counsel 25, Henderson’s On May clerk, a “constable” from the received complaint, office 1, the constable’s On June service. to effect a request that counsel Henderson’s documents, informing returned form, it lacked because not in proper was the summons clerk the court wrote to thereupon seal. Counsel court’s court with the appropriate forms new summons requesting 19; ulti- August on this request Counsel repeated seal. received the prop- counsel 25, Henderson’s on August mately, summons. sealed erly the constable’s counsel requested Henderson’s
Once again, time to an extension for 30, moved and, on August service The court granted Attorney.5 States serve 15. until for service September the time motion, extending received personal The United form, on September in proper and complaint, summons time, in 4(d)(4), at effective Civil Procedure Rule of Federal sent] [be complaint and of the of the summons “a copy structed of the United Attorney General mail to or certified registered currently instruction The same of Columbia.” Washington, District 4(i)(l)(B). in Rule appears 4( force, for provided then in j), Rule of Civil of the com filing days after within summons The substance cause. good to extension subject limit a time plaint, 4(m),' a district permits in current is retained this provision no cause good if there is “even for service time enlarge court to Fed. 1993 Amendments Committee’s Notes Advisory shown.” *5 p. 654. App., 28 U. S. C. Civ. Proc. received the
Thus, the General days Attorney complaint and the United suit, after Henderson filed States Attorney after Henderson commenced was served 148 days personally No- his court. On action by filing complaint moved to dismiss 17, 1993, vember of, that motion led for, The action. disposition grounds certiorari. for to Henderson’s petition maintained that it lacked no- has never The United States within the limitation Henderson’s 2-year tice of complaint Act claims. See for Suits Admiralty period prescribed (counsel for United 745; Tr. Oral Arg. U. S. C. App. that service on General gave Attorney States acknowledged limita- before three months 2-year actual notice Government ended).6 asserted has Government any tion Nor period defense of its stemming to the presentation prejudice And the of the summons complaint. delayed sat- debate, it service, beyond manner and appears timing Procedure of Federal Rule Civil isfied requirements on service (titled detailing prescriptions “Summons” of process). dismiss,
In of its motion support Act, 46 §2 of the Suits relied exclusively part: U. S. C. provides forthwith serve copy libelant “The [plaintiff] on the United States attorney his libel [complaint] and mail a copy district suit brought] [where [the] mail to the Genеral thereof by registered the United States.” its enactment since remained
This unchanged provision Federal Rules Civil before the 1920,18 years were before effective, admiralty became years Rules. Govern- realm of Civil within the brought failure to serve Henderson’s ment argued event, period within the limitation In any filing n. timely. rendered the action
660 deprived District by §742, required
“forthwith,” as §742 describes jurisdiction because subject-matter Court sovereign States’ the United the conditions immunity. mo initially denied the Government’s District Court The intervening an based on the matter reconsidered tion, but Holmberg, 19 F. 3d v. States decision, Fifth Circuit in Holm- court The U. S. 986 denied, 513 cert. that the held States, berg, agreeing with the United of the Gov a condition requirement “is “forthwith” service juris thus, a and, waiver of ernment’s ruling, the In so 3d, at 19 1064. prerequisite.” F. dictional proc argument that service rejected Holmberg court generality of in the Act, as the Suits ess under matter law, is а timely under federal arising and filed of Civil by Federal Rules governed procedure, now Procedure. Hender- dismissed Holmberg, District Court
Bound jurisdiction, and subject-matter lack of son’s Holmberg, affirmed. adhering to Appeals, the Court 1995).7 (CA5 dis- resolve granted certiorari We 3dF. Fed- question whether on among courts lower agreement 120-day period an extendable authorizes 4, eral Rule Admiralty Act supersedes Suits process, for service made States on provision that service “forthwith.”8 defini no been uniform that there has Holmberg “agree[d] court 3d, and the §742,19 F. at forthwith,” term is used that
tion service on whether position no took instant case Appeals Court of could of the action commencement days after Attorney General on however, held, 3d, The court at 51 F. “forthwith.” count as officers —the service both applies to requirement “forthwith” “completing stated Attorney General —and and the Attorney] is on the United service [through days in 148 Id., at 576. forthwith.” (CA11 States, 2d 840 F. Libby United v. Compare, e.g., (CA9 1981); Battaglia States, 1229, 1231 F. 2d Kenyon United 1988);
II suggests that 4’s extendable first The United States 120-day prescription, and the Act’s time read har- instruction, can and should be “forthwith” 4(j) moniously. service, limit for The Rule 4 time provided: commenced,9 *7 action the time Henderson’s “(j) Limit for If a service Time Service. Summons: complaint upon not a de- made the summons days filing within 120 after fendant required party such service was on whose behalf and the why not made good such service was cause cannot show period, dismissed as to the action shall be within that 4(j) . .” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. that defendant . . App. 742, 46 U. S. C. 2 of the Section supra, 659, at a word prescribes “forthwith,” see law, in case but indicative precisely in the Act or defined apparent days. The conflict far shorter than 120 of a time urges, es- if one reads Rule dissolves, the Government complaint” [a] right tablishing to serve not “an affirmative boundary timely days, only serv- outer within 120 but an Arg. 14, 18, 26; Tr. of Oral Brief for United States ice. See 28, 30. reject the Federal view of the time
We the Government’s Reading 4 in its histor- Rule authorize for service. 120-dayprovision operates concludethat the context, ical we irre- subject but as an reduction, limit to not as an outer no time 4 contained Prior to Rule ducible allowance. year, changes installed that Until the limit for service. United, States, (CA2), dism’d, S. 907 cert. 371 U. F. 2d 685-686 Inc., Steel, Towing, Inc. v. Mon River Laughlin with Jones & (1962), (CA3 1985). 2d, 1231-1232 Kenyon, 676 F at F. 2d See also 2d, J., (Boochever, (Friendly, concurring); Battaglia, J., 303 F. at 686-687 concurring). 4(m) time limit for service. See Currently, Rule states the n. 5. The relevant attended service. marshals provisions read:
Rule 4 “(a) filing Upon com- issuance. Summons: summons and de- forthwith issue plaint the clerk shall person any other the marshal or it for sеrvice liver 4(c) . . by to serve it. . authorized “(c) By Service whom served. by by deputy, marshal, his by
made a United specially appointed the court for that person some (c) (1980). 4(a), purpose Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. . . . .” expeditiously, expected to effect were Marshals 41(b), plain- “[f]or failure providing for dismissal against check unrea- invoked as prosecute,” could be tiff to Wright Miller, Prac- delay. & A. C. sonable (2d 1995); 2 pp. J. ed. §2370, and Procedure tice (2d 1995). p. 436 ¶4.18, ed. Practice Moore, Moore’sFederal *8 completed operative in a shift changes 1983 made Rule the United States marshals responsibility service from Experience: Hope Man- Over plaintiff. Mullenix, See to the Rulemaking, Discovery datory Politics Informal longer no With marshals 795, L. Rev. N. C. process servers, Judicial Conference available as routine pro- necessary; the Conference a time сontrol considered days filing approved, 120 posed, and this Court appropriate limit. relaxed as the 120-day authorizing change by an extension of the rule “good responsible for service showed period party if the Cong. Rec. 30931-30932 661; cause.” See (1982), p. App., reprinted 28 U. C. S. Rules, recently, courts amendments in 1993
Most 120-day period enlarge discretion have been accorded Advisory good See Com- if is no cause shown.” “even there App., 4, 28 U. S. C. Rule Civ. Proc. mittee’s Notes on Fed. p. tellingly, 654.10 And “[a] text of 4Rule sets out, as specific good instance of cause,” ibid., allowance of “a reason- “cur[e] able time” to multiple the failure to serve officers ... plaintiff if has effected service on attorney either the United States or the General” 4(i)(3). prescribed days. within the Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. convey message: The Federal Rules thus a clear Com- plaints days, are not to be dismissed if served within 120 may within such additional time as the court allow. Fur- acknowledges thermore, the United States that, 120-day aside, Suits in Act Rule 4’s extendable prescription applies range litigation, time to the full of civil including brought against the United States under the . Tort Act, §2675, Claims 28 U. S. C. and the Tucker (1887)(current Act, 359, 24 ch. Stat. 505 version 28 U. S. C. C.). §§1346, 1491 and other scattered sections of 28 U. S. Arg. Tr. of are Oral 33. We therefore satisfied that Rule regime irreconcilably 4’s conflicts §2’s instruction,
Act service “forthwith” and we turn to the dispositive question: supersede Does the incon- statutory sistent direction?
1—1hH I—1 Enabling seq., 28 U. S. C. 2071 et author- Supreme prescribe general izes the prac- Court “to rules of procedure tice and ... for cases in the United States district § 2072(a), appeals,” courts . .. and courts of and directs: 4(m), Service,” captioned “Time Limit for currently provides: *9 “If service of the not upon summons is made a defendant court, within 120 days after the the filing complaint, upon motion or on own its initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without to that prejudice as defendant or direct that service be effected time; within a specified that if the provided plaintiff shows cause for good failure, the the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate added.) period....” (Emphasis any modify enlarge abridge, or shall rules
“Such rules such with conflict in right. All laws substantive rules such effect after or force further of no shall 2072(b). § effect.” taken have understanding of confirmation in Correspondingly, and Equity Rules, Federal Federal former under practice of “[The Rules provides: of Civil Rule or limit to extend Procedure] construed not be Civil the venue or courts district of United jurisdiction *10 the Suits in Act service “forthwith” provision could coexist. Rule 4, recоunted, just con- originally tained no time that, direction prescription, only “[u]pon the clerk shall filing forthwith issue a summons and deliver it for service,” to a generally United States marshal. See at 662. It was only 1983, when were made plaintiffs service with- responsible out the aid marshal, that the came 120-day provision force, into that rendered Rule 4’s time provision frame § irreconcilable with 742’s service “forthwith” instruction.
Section of the Suits Act, 46 U. S. C. § 742, “Libel in contains a broad waiver captioned personam,” in its first sentence: sovereign immunity
“In cases where if vessel owned or [a operated by were owned or States] ... a privately operated could be maintained, proceeding admiralty any appro- priate nonjury proceeding personam may brought the United States .. ..” against 3 of the Act, Section 46 U. S. C. App. although cap- tioned “Procedure in cases of libel in personam,” completes for costs and interest on by providing the United States.11 See money judgments against Co., States v. Bodcaw 440 U. S. 203-204, (1979); n. 3 Fed. 54(d)(1) (absent Rule Civ. Proc. an statute, authorizing is not costs); liable for Library Shaw, (1986) (absent 478 U. S. an stat- authorizing interest). is ute, United States not liable for The United that not States asserts the first sentence just §742, but that section in its entirety “jurisdictional,” out the terms and conditions of the Government’s spelling Specifically, the second sentence of 743 reads: against suit, “A decree the United States . . . may include costs of when the decree is for a money judgment, interest at the rate of 4 per satisfied, centum annum per any until or at rate which higher shall be stipulated any contract which such decree shall be upon based.” *11 immunity, to the next section in contrast § Admiralty App. 743, which Act, U. S. C. in the Suits “Such specifying in its first sentence: “procedure,” governs determined ac- be heard and proceed and shall suits shall practice to the rules of principles law and cording private parties.” See Brief obtaining between in like cases Holmberg, 3d, at 1064; 19 F. 26-27; see also for United (CA11 1988)(“The F. 2d Libby States, 840 v. United sovereign immunity is declared in that the waiver fact admiralty governing procedures suits 742, while section specified in section indi- are against the United States in section 742 are requirements contained cates that argument adopts this procedural.”). The dissent more than (finding key to post, at 674-676 and sinker. See hook, line, Congress’ Act in of the Suits and structure text (46 § App. requirement in 2 C. placement of service 743)). (46 § 742) § just § But than 3 U. S. C. rather Sovereign’s § procedural,” it waives the “purely is not §742 perva- is not interest, so as to costs sively “jurisdictional.” § immediately following waiver, 742’sbroad
The sentence service, reads: immediately preceding the sentence on brоught “Such, court of the district suits parties so district for the principal any their suing, them, reside or have in which the place States, or in the United business liability charged is found.” vessel. . . provision will be rec- notably generous-to-plaintiffs
This describing instantly choices, ognized venue as one (“Venue § jurisdiction. subject-matter Cf. 28 U. S. C. generally”). provides: 742’s sentence final
Section may, “Upon application party the cause of either any other court, be transferred the discretion court States.” district 28 U. of venue to more Cf. S. C. convenient (change forum); transfer, dismissal, rather than (authorizing laid). when venue is improperly simultaneously Act, added to the Suits in the Public Vessels Act the transfer and the Federal Tort Claims provision just so that dismissals could be avoided set out “jurisdictional” suit when commenced statute. wrong plaintiffs 2d Sess., (1960); 86th cf. See S. No. Cong., pp. Rep. alia, inter re- transfer, § 1631 when 28 U. S. C. (authorizing сourt). in the action is federal view of sought wrong agency 742’s venue and short, In far from reining “jurisdiction,” forum choices transfer afford plaintiffs multiple provisions *12 dismissal for suing wrong spare plaintiffs Act.12 or under wrong place on service reads: 742’s critical sentence
Section forthwith serve a “The libelant copy [plaintiff] for on the United States his libel attorney [complaint] thereof mail and mail a by such district copy registered . . .” to the General. Attorney see Tr. Oral as observed at oral 4, Arg. Rule argument, of the summons 27-28, for dispatch provides certified mail.” or General “by registered n. 4. The Government’s 658, sovereign- at See did waiver, counsel for United States agreed, service, the sole form of mail- mail not depend registered said, counsel “cer- “in this authorizes; § 742 day age,” ing Tr. of 28-29. mail would be Oral tified Arg. acceptable.” post, in Admi- 678, [a But see at n. (“jurisdiction use of suit turn the plаintiff’s registered ralty may upon Act] mail”). are §of 742’s It thus that several provisions appears or In- “substantive” “jurisdictional.” not typed sensibly facilitative, cast. have a stead, distinctly “procedural” they wrote, 674, see at fidelity Congress post, While for to what striving § many “largely the dissent writes off of 742’s words as inexplicably at point,” post, beside the 674. or rights substantive case with processing, deal
They to suit.13 consent “sub- made is not prescription "forthwith” If the along its by inclusion — “jurisdictional” stantive” super- rule of procedure is it choices—in venue broad ques- dispositive address we Before 4? Rule by seded con- Rule 4(j), issue. a preliminary note we tion, filed time Henderson at 120-day prescription tained Court pursuant this prescribed simply was not suit, (rules trans- S. C. 28 U. See Act. Enabling Rules become 1”May than later “not to Congress Court mitted by un- the same year of1” December than earlier “no effective was Instead, provides). otherwise Congress less Federal as part Congress law by into enacted Stat. §2, 96 Act Amendments of Civil acknowl- supra, As 662. See supersedes Congress law by made however, edges, Court prescribes. this a Rule than less no laws conflicting with peti- (“We agree 16, n. Brief evidence best 2072(b) provides Section ... tioner governance placed were admiralty proceedings before Even observed: trenchantly Friendly Henry Rules, Judge failure every ‘jurisdictional’ render [to meant believe “I cannot the Suits step outlined procedural awith comply *13 to libelant aby basic the gave that, once supposed have Act]; I should Admiralty [§742], first sentence the in States, it did as United the to sue consent procedural various effect the decide courts the to have content it was or owned privately were vessel ‘if such as manner same the in lapses (сoncurring 2d, 686 States, at F. 303 v. United Battaglia operated.’” opinion). Judge' therefore however, and otherwise, was precedent Circuit 4-a conclusion” “Draconian the in concurred reluctantly Friendly for called Attorney General the to pleadings the mailing in delay month States United on the service “forthwith” ease, despite dismissal reasonable (“court allow 4(i)(3) shall Proc. Civ. Rule Fed. Cf. Attorney. United the ... officers multiple serve failure the “cur[e] time” States United either on service effected plaintiff if States General”). Attorney or attorney
669 proper construction regarding the congressional intent laws.”). with other 4(j) its interaction and Rule linger question, we dispositive need Returning to the the further said, and have so far weWhat answer. over the gov- response: 4 securely Rule to this lead below, elaboration and not in this case whole and service erns summоns part. of an action Henderson, on commencement plaintiff like
A immediately Admiralty resort Act, must the Suits supra, process. See on 4 for instructions to Rule gov- finds Rule, one instructions In that 3,4. nn. 657,and at summons, service issuance alia, form and erning, inter may serve complaint, who together with of the summons how also describes The Rule proof of service.14 process, and categories of de- various on may effected Its States, and detail, “the United including, in fendants,15 prescrip- All these Corporations, or Officers.”16 Agencies, cases, Act apply in Suits uncontested, is tions, it see no reason We federal cases. they apply in other just as not, is service17 for governing time prescription why the (l). (c), 4(a), (b), Proe. Civ. Fed. Rule Currently, 4(e) (j). Civ. Proc. Fed. Currently, Rule — Civ. Proe. 4(i); Fed. Rule formerly, Proe. Rule Civ. Fed. Currently, (Boochever, J., 2d, F. at 1232 658, 4; 4(d)(4). Kenyon, n. C. 46 U. S. 2 of the (noting that concurring) General of Attornеy mail to “by registered mailing specifies 4(d)(4), Rule, Rule then that the Federal States,” commenting mail”). Rule— current or certified “registered allowing supersedes, by per a party States 4(i) service when facilitates —further re employees to clerical Attorney designate mitting by mail. on the United allowing service ceive 4(i)(A). Civ. Proc. See Fed. rulemakers, the aim acknowledges The Government of service method comprehensive start, “‘a uniform to provide ” 19-20, States,’ for United Brief against all actions Fed. Adoption *14 19-20, service, States for United Brief “timing” of tween “method” and rule 4, governing Rule nonjurisdictional whole of
is the cases, see 28 U. S. C. in federal and procedure” “practice and Fed- Act the Rules Enabling 2072(a), consistent Admi- like the in Suits rendering provisions eral Rule “of no further service “forthwith” requirement Act’s ralty Laughlin Steel, Inc. & See Jones 2072(b). effect,” force or Towing,Inc., (CA3 1985) River 2d (just v. Mon 772 F. in service of process the method 4 “now governs United as service as well actions, process admiralty the “con- it is a so to which party,” civil cases in all States for ac- a uniform 120-day period enactment gressional prior inconsistent supersedes service of process” complishing in Act’s Admiralty requirement in “the law, particular, Kenyon States, 676 F. 2d service”); of forthwith (“I can see (Boochever, J., (CA9 1981) concurring) 1229, 1232 method be a different should there reason why no logical cases] Act [Suits one instance in this defendant.”).18 is a which of “time” 4(i)(3) suggested separation why shows n. Current provi- That is not credible. in this context or “manner” from “method” “manner,” instructs: sion, in relation addressing “time” for ... time for service reasonable shall allow a “The court officers... of multiple to serve the failure curing purpose either the United service on effected рlaintiff has States if States.” of the United General attorney or 13, reluc at n. Boochever, Friendly, see Judge like Judge “forthwith” ranked service precedent, in Circuit tantly concurred waiver Government’s congressional precedent “a condition cogently But he 2d, at 1231. stated F. immunity,” Kenyon, sovereign of stare decisis”: from the bounds take freed he would “if the view of the substantive integral part an constitute 742 does not “Section necessary provision procedural a mere immunity, but such it enactment, waiver. As effectuate that time of the statute’s Id., (concurring opinion). at 1232 Rules.” the Federal superseded was cases, has Circuit, Kenyon other Ninth Curiously, although “jurisdic- provision Act service “forthwith” the Suits typed remedy litigants to a tional,” pointed of Appeals Court 2-year after the statute even complaint, situation: Amend Henderson’s
671 process, prop- to understаnd, we have come is Service erly regarded jurisdiction as a matter discrete from a court’s controversy particular against adjudicate of a to a kind,19 particular purpose individual or Its essential is a entity.20 auxiliary, purpose from the substantive distinct matters wrenching precedent dissent, on which the aired in the extensively may what relies—who context, from sue,21 within what limitations for what relief,23 claims,22 period.24 745) (46 run, § serve the United States U. S. C. App. of limitations “forthwith,” steps, gain and those General Attorney and date filing through application original complaint the benefit of the Rule, 15(c). of Civil of Federal Procedure back” provision the “relation (CA9 Inc., 711 F. 2d 1435-1437 Ling-Temco-Vought, v. See Ashland 1983) when amended a plaintiff complaint, relation back such (allowing Act, Tort Claims to assert under the Federal earlier years four brought Act); Tr. of Oral 38 Arg. cf. the Suits a claim under instead Henderson, (counsel who filed his acknowledged States for United anytime fresh before 8,1993, complaint have filed a could April (the expired), of limitations 2-year statute date year 27 of that August claim). of his “forthwith,” the loss thereby avoiding it and served Miller, A. & E. 13 C. e., Wright, See jurisdiction. subject-matter 19 I. (2d 1984); §3522, Re p. 78 ed. Procedure Practice and Federal Cooper, (1982) “subject mat (Second) (defining 108 p. Judgments statement adjudicate type to court] “authority [of as the ter jurisdiction” action”). involved controversy 20 see persons,” over “jurisdiction support to sufficient relationships On 35-44, 27-32, §§ (Second) of Laws of Conflict Restatement generally Miller, Practice 1989). & Federal (1971 4 Wright also See Supp. §1064. 21 (Tucker (1941) Sherwood, U. S. 584 312 v. States United See States, joinder not authorize does claims against contract allowing parties). private between of claims 22 (Bank (1992) 30, 39 Inc., U. S. 503 Village, Nordic v. See United immunity 106(c) Government’s not waive does Code ruptcy claims). monetary relief trustee’s bankruptcy 23 (Govern (1986) Shaw, U. S. v. Library immunity waive does not damages from suit waiver of ment’s interest). respect (1995); Williams, 527, 534, 7n. See, g., e. Lands, and School Univ. rel. Board ex North Dakota Block v. notice of service supply function core Instead, time that at a action, in a manner of a legal pendency the com- answer fair opportunity defendant affords Seeing and objections.25 defenses and present plaint uniform system view this light, satisfied we are Procedure provides, of Civil Suits in *16 “forthwith” provision the service 4, and by been 742, displaced has § 46 S. C. U. or effect. force no current therefore [*] [*] [*] of the Court Ap- stated, the judgment reasons For the is re- of Henderson’s the dismissal affirming peals consistent remanded versed, proceedings the case is with this opinion. ordered.
It is so Kennedy joins, whom with Justice Scalia, Justice concurring. to I write the Court. separately
I the opinion join I do not understand view, and that it is not my make clear can be juris- no hold, provision to procedural the Court to within the power It assuredly dictional. strict com- immunity upon its waiver of sovereign condition waiver, attached provisions with procedural pliance a court of will to deprive the result that failure comply with (Trad- (1967) Clark, U. S. But cf. Honda 273, 386 484 U. S. limitation; 34(f) Court 60-day claim-filing a Enemy provided Act ing preserve petitioners’ tolling principles equitable traditional applied limitation). 60-day filed within suit was where similar cause action Co., Bank & Trust Hanover See Mullane v. Central (1950) (to interested “apprise notice must generally as qualify adequate, opportunity them an the action and afford parties pendency Trautman, & Jurisdic See also Von Mehren objections”). presеnt their L. 79 Harv. Rev. Analysis, A Adjudicate: tion to Suggested (1966) of adjudicatory matter from bases separate notice a (recognizing (same). Miller, at 225 & jurisdiction); Wright by I Court, stated do jurisdiction. the reasons For legislative here makes the “forthwith” scheme think that requirement such condition. The Chief Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Justice O’Connor dissenting. join, Act) (SAA Act entitles
The Suits in in all be served with “forthwith” brought As a statu- admiralty proceedings under the Act. immunity, its tory on the Government’s condition compliance demands strict on service time restriction this jurisdiction to entertain suits court’s the district and delimits majority’s con- admiralty.against the United States. supplanted Fed- former requirement is that this clusion 4(m)) (now rests on 4(j) Rule Civil eral with our sover- misreading and is irreconcilable SAA I that Con- Because believe immunity jurisprudence. eign admiralty against the United suits to restrict gress intended *17 receives States the United in which cases to those States respectfully dissent. I process forthwith, of service from suit “is immune sovereign, the United States aAs Sherwood, v. be sued.” to as it consents save (1941). corollary rule necessary of this “A 584, 586 312 U. S. legislation to conditions Congress attaches that when is those States, immunity sovereign of United waiving the exceptions thereto strictly and observed, be conditions must ex Dakota North implied.” Block v. lightly be not to are 273, Lands, 461 U. S. and School Univ. rel. Board of 160- (1983). Nakshian, 453 U. S. v. Lehman See also immunity (“Like [sovereign] itself, (1981) of a has expressed,’ ‘this Court ‘unequivocally be must which upon conditions limitations and long that decided strictly observed be must be sued consents to Government (citations implied’” be to exceptions are not thereto and omitted)). a matter involves that the condition fact The many analysis, cases for “in affect procedure does in statutes embodied rules procedural reаd this Court effectuating a eye strictly, with an immunity waiving relinquishes when purpose legislative restrictive 484, 501 Clark, 386 immunity.” Honda sovereign extent of interpreting the point starting in always, the As statute. the text is a waiver provides waiver. It the actual Act contains 2 of Section States] [of were [a] if vessel “[i]n where cases that [of United cargo . if . operated, or . or owned privately private a or if possessed, owned privately States] were admiralty proceeding in a involved, were property person or in nonjury proceeding any appropriate maintained, could be States.” against the United brought may be personam pro- the service 2 also contains App. 742. Section U. S. C. suing plaintiff a that states case, which this issue vision at copy a serve admiralty forthwith “shall States United attorney district for such his libel mail registered copy thereof and mail return sworn file and States, General mailing shall mailing. service Such of such Sec- Ibid. States.” on the-United valid constitute libel cases “Procedure aptly titled tion 3 proceed “shall the SAA provides suits personam,” princi- according to the determined heard and shall obtaining in like cases practice rules ples law and §743. parties.” private between conclude me to lead the SAA structure text proceed admiralty suits to allow Congress intended process in which only against the United *18 understanding scheme the key to “forthwith.” served Congress’ decision so much Congress not lies enacted not its decision as in requirement place service this the ma- reason, this 3; for process in of service to address ante, at 665- analysis 2, see of sentence-by-sentence jority’s provides that the point. Section largely beside 668, is private parties in ad- governing ordinary procedure of rules Congress ex- But govern miralty suits under SAA. also require- service-of-process provision the cepted this altogether. This separate section placed in a it ment signifi- greater Congress only that attached suggests not process be forthwith served requirement that cance importantly, that more but, procedural rules, to other than SAA forthwith process to be served expected rules law and . . . “principles of regardless of parties.” private between obtaining in like cases practice §743. U. S. C. requirement that the SAA’s convinced I not Even were waiver on Government’s a condition is prompt service majority agree immunity, not could I still sovereign best, At waiver. on the condition clearly not a is it that interpreting the when point, and this ambiguous on is SAA ambiguity must immunity, a waiver breadth See of the Government. favor always resolved be (1995). con- haveWe 527, 531 U. S. Williams, 514 v. Gov- that the principle traditional “the sistently reaffirmed strictly in construed be must to be sued consent ernment’s beyond what enlarge[d] . . . sovereign, favor Village, Nordic v. requires.” United language (citations quotation (1992) and internal 30, S. Inc., 503 U. Shaw, Congress v. omitted). Library also marks interpret plausible at least It is S. U. waiver, on a condition provision SAA’s Gov- in the statute construing the justify enough to that Village, Nordic Cf. favor. ernment’s as a read is best requirement the SAA’s Because sovereign immu- the Government’s condition cannot requirement this necessarily follows nity, it Sover- Procedure. of Civil by a Federal superseded Meyer, FDIC jurisdictional, by nature immunity is eign States’ (1994), terms 471, 475 “ jurisdic- court’s any court define be sued 'consent *19 Ibid, Sherwood, (quoting the suit.’” entertain to tion that Act provides Enabling Rules 586). the Though at S., U. with” “in conflict are that laws enacted all previously force further no be of “shall Procedure of Civil Rules that provides it also 2072(b), expressly S. C. 28 U. effect,” or modify any enlarge not abridge, “shall the Federal Rules claims SAA ibid. Allowing right,” substantive the United to against forthwith proceed served is not the Government’s upon infringes States contravention in direct right a substantive alters thereby of Civil Moreover, Federal Act. Enabling the Rules “shall of Procedure that the clear makes the jurisdiction or limit extend to construed not be na- the jurisdictional courts.” Given district States United this suit allowing immunity, ture of a also violates proceed au- rules that ordinary procedural not to imply
I do mean in civil prerequisites become jurisdictional tomatically not. defendant; do they ais States because simply procedural impose power certainly But Congress immu- of sovereign on a waiver a condition as requirement condition with that strict compliance and to require nity court’s jurisdic- or maintaining to invoking a prerequisite SAA demonstrate and structure The text tion. SAA, and it enacted the when this exercised power so far as may civil they rules of . . . practice “nothing courts district [against in suits brought be applicable suit against the maintenance any authorizes Government] consented.” it has not otherwise to which States Sherwood, 589.1 Sherwood, (1941), we S. 584 in United instance, U. For joinder provisions the liberal joinder possibility
held
claim
to hear a
district court
not authorize a
does
the Federal Rules
party
of contract
breach
the Government
brought against
under the
suit
bring
against
specifically authorized
in a
case
similar
joinder
the possibility
Notwithstanding
Act.
Tucker
*20
majority rejects
proposition, accepted by
The
four of
Appeals
the five
that have
this issue,
Courts
addressed
requirement
that a service
can serve as a
on a
condition
sоvereign immunity.2
major-
be,
waiver of
This cannot
sensibly typed
ity concludes, because service is “not
‘sub-
”
“
‘jurisdictional,’
‘procedural’
stantive’ or
and instead has a
processing.”
“deal[s]
Ante,
cast” and
with case
at 667-668.
inquiry
proper
whether the
But the
is not
condition is
long
“procedural”
“substantive,”
for we have
main-
nature
procedural rules can
a
tained that even
condition waiver
sovereign immunity.
Honda,
S.,
386
at 501. The
See
U.
Congress
scope
fact that
has determined to limit the
of its
jurisdic-
to suit is sufficient to restrict federal-court
consent
regardless of
States,
tion over the United
the nature
Congress
though
For
no
instance,
condition
has attached.
satisfy
claim that failure to
a statute of limitations
one would
private parties
jurisdic-
would
as a
in a case between
serve
plaintiff’s
long
that a
suit,
tional bar to the
we have
held
sovereign
a waiver of
im-
statute of limitations attached to
munity
functions
a condition on the waiver and defines
jurisdiction
hear a claim
of the district court’s
limits
against
Williams,
at S.,
See
514 U.
United States.
Kubrick, 444
7; Block,
S.,
287;
n.
461 U.
at
United States v.
(1979);
States,
v.
352
U. S.
117-118
Soriano
United
(1957).
Wright,
generally 14
271, 273
C.
U.S.
one of
matter
private parties,
explained
“[t]he
[was]
between
we
whose limits are marked
the Govern-
jurisdiction
but of
procedure
sued,”
the Government’s consent to suit
ment’s consent to be
and held that
adjudicated
of the issues to be
be conditioned ... on the restriction
“may
Id.,
suit,
the Government.”
to those between the claimant and
at 591.
(CA5),
denied, 513
Holmberg,
See
A. (1985).3 the SAA’s is true of same pp. §3654, process be- in case service While requirement. “a to be may generally be understood parties private tween adjudicate а jurisdiction a court’s discrete matter ante, 671, a waiver kind,” controversy particular of a method of upon particular immunity conditioned nonjurisdic- ordinarily a what would transform jurisdictional one.4 into a rule tional no attached majority concludes Once requirement that significanceto the SAA’s particular by opera- 4(j), that Rule the conclusion forthwith, be served §2’s *21 re- displaces Enabling service Act, Rules tion naturally. is not But that appear to 'flow quirement would Enabling concedes, the As the Government the case. S.U. Affairs, Veterans in Irwin Department v. we held Although the against brought of limitations cases (1990), 89, that statutes 95-96 we reaf tolling, also equitable to subject presumptively are Government States the United on suit against a time restriction case that in that firmed and thus must immunity sovereign “is condition our Id., departure did mark a at 94. Irwin strictly construed.” sovereign in the of limitations stricter, treatment statutes earlier, and Williams, States v. in context, our decision but brought against limitations in suits (1995), that statutes makes clear were they than jurisdictional prerequisites no less States are “narrow[s] limitations a statute of that Williams confirmed before Irwin. 7, 534, for S., and cited at n. 514 U. immunity,” waiver of the Dalm, (1990), which held 494 U. S. proposition this tax refund a federal Government against a claim the to file that failure bar to suit. jurisdictional as a operates of limitations the statute within Act, SAA jurisdiction the an reading that, my recognize 4 I mail, also which is registered use of plaintiff’s the upon turn may suit forth to be served requires that in the sentence specified require like an odd may § this seem Though S. C. 46 U. with. reading textual most the sensible perspective, from our modern ment method of impose specific sought Congress is still Act generally. rules governing regard without SAA that the SAA if it determines free to amend statute mailing practices. with modern out of date fallen “technically inapplicable” Act is in this case, Brief for United 4(j) promulgated by n. because Rule was not by Congress, this Court but rather was enacted see Pub. L. Enabling by 97-462, 96 Stat. and the Rules Act its only statutory procedure terms nullifies rules of that conflict promulgated by Supreme with rules Court. acknowledges majority inapplicability The of the Rules Enabling appears apply ante, 668, but at Act 2072(b)). (citing ante, at nonetheless, 28 U. S. C. entirely point, majority however, The is not clear on this may appears majority 4(j) instead find that it implied repeal requirement effected an of 2’s service inde- (“[A] Enabling pendent ante,, Act. of the Rules by Congress supersedes conflicting laws no Rule made law prescribes”). majority may less than a this Court only by Enabling this statement that the Rules Act mean pertains equally promulgated to Rules of Procedure this by Congress, assume, but I am reluctant to absent Court indication, the reliance on a of statu- clearer Court’s method tory that allows us to rewrite a when construction statute specific the text does not address the situation before us or generate when it does not an outcome that we desire. Re- gardless actually rubric under which this case is de- my opinion, wrong cided, Court, reaches conclu- *22 procedures apply In to the rest sion. contrast that requires specific Act cases, SAA method of service even though procedures govern may similar cases differ. This, in combination with the critical fact that this case in- immunity, leads me to conclude volves waiver 4(j) displace requirement that Rule does not the service Enabling implied either Act or an under as repeal. only remaining question is whether Henderson served complaint
his on the United States is “forthwith.” There argument no reasonable that he did. Henderson his served complaint days on the United States after he never Although we have Court. District in the it
filed SAA, in the it is as used “forthwith” define undertaken immedi is action “connotes the term it clear dispatch.” reasonable and with delay, prompt, ate, without 1984) (CA9 (citing 2dF. States, 732 v. United Amella 1979)). (5th Dick also ed. Dictionary 588 Law Black’s Co., 176 Trust v. Northern erman serving his may have had problems Henderson Whatever delay 148-day can States, upon the United even forthwith served hardly described respectfully I term. generous definition the most dissent. Notes Advisory Committee’s See 1937 therein.” actions (Rule 82 App., p. 821 28 U. S. C. Civ. Proc. Rule Fed. joinder claim allowance broad the Rules’ confirms Wright & see also jurisdiction.”); federal extend “does not 210-214. 3141, at Miller, supersede 4 cannot States, Rule According §App. 742, for C. Admiralty 46 U. S. Act, in of the Suits rights” “substantive affects “jurisdictional” and latter is its waives on which setting the terms contrast, characterizes in immunity. Henderson, instruction “forthwith” Admiralty Act’s the Suits “forthwith,” processing Service rule. nonjurisdictional a §745’s part urges, forms no he con- for the simply a direction but limitations, is statute timely court— launched litigation the case once duct with, and in conflict characteristically direction “how to” by, superseded therefore the char- 742 to determine examining the text Before note that provision, we “forthwith” acter vintage. recent relatively 4 is of conflict personam suits which allows was enacted torts, maritime States for against the United the Federal Rules. years advent before processed, from admiralty cases were Furthermore, Even after Rules. discrete 1966, under until gov- brought admiralty were year 1966,the 4 and Procedure, Rule of Civil the Federal ernance
Notes
Notes Committee’s Advisory n. 18 (quoting be 641), a distinction tenders p. but U. S. C. App., Proc. Civ.