668
Opinion of the Court
They deal with case processing, not substantive rights or consent to suit.13
If the service "forthwith" prescription is not made "substantive" or "jurisdictional" by its inclusion—along with broad venue choices—in § 742, is it a rule of procedure superseded by Rule 4? Before we address that dispositive question, we note a preliminary issue. Rule 4( j), which contained the 120-day prescription at the time Henderson filed suit, was not simply prescribed by this Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act. See 28 U. S. C. § 2074 (rules transmitted by Court to Congress "not later than May 1" become effective "no earlier than December 1" of the same year unless Congress otherwise provides). Instead, the Rule was enacted into law by Congress as part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments Act of 1982, § 2, 96 Stat. 2527. See supra, at 662. As the United States acknowledges, however, a Rule made law by Congress supersedes conflicting laws no less than a Rule this Court prescribes. See Brief for United States 16, n. 14 ("We agree with petitioner . . . that Section 2072(b) provides the best evidence of
13 Even before admiralty proceedings were placed under the governance of the Federal Rules, Judge Henry Friendly trenchantly observed:
"I cannot believe Congress meant [to render 'jurisdictional' every failure by a libelant to comply with a procedural step outlined in the Suits in Admiralty Act]; I should have supposed that, once Congress gave the basic consent to sue the United States, as it did in the first sentence of [§ 742], it was content to have the courts decide the effect of various procedural lapses in the same manner as 'if such vessel were privately owned or operated.' " Battaglia v. United States, 303 F. 2d, at 686 (concurring opinion).
Circuit precedent was otherwise, however, and therefore Judge Friendly reluctantly concurred in the "Draconian conclusion" that a 4-month delay in mailing the pleadings to the Attorney General called for dismissal of the case, despite "forthwith" service on the United States Attorney. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(i)(3) ("court shall allow a reasonable time" to "cur[e] the failure to serve multiple officers . . . of the United States if the plaintiff has effected service on either the United States attorney or the Attorney General").
Page: Index Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007