Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind  09/25/1984)

Defendants' improper service argument centers on the mode of service effected on the individual defendants. It claims that the individual defendants were not served personally as is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) because service was effected by sending copies of the complaint and summons by certified mail addressed to each of the individual defendants at the office of the IRS in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Such service is sufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(5) for service of process on an officer or agency of the United States. However, plaintiff seeks to sue the individual defendants in their individual capacity, and as the defendants correctly point out, "where money damages are sought from a public official in his individual capacity, service by mail under Rule 4(d)(5) is insufficient." Micklus v. Carlson, 632 F.2d 227, 240 (3d Cir. 1980). Accord Relf v. Gasch, 511 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Marsh v. Kitchen, 480 F.2d 1270 (2d Cir. 1973). Thus, plaintiff has not yet properly served the individual defendants, but such improper service is not fatal to plaintiff's case. The court therefore turns to defendants' second basis for dismissal: immunity.

[Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind  09/25/1984)]