Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case due to federal defendants' non-compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The district court made legal mistakes in the review the time to respond, directed ; ‘ must respond in summons served or-if required 21 days or within 60 days. Federal | i defendants William Pelham Barr, Channing D. Phillips and defendant Eric Garcetti . failed to reply served summons. The district court’s order on December 4, 2019 dismissing ) , the case was erroneous and contrary to rules because it allowed federal defendants’ . and defendant’s non-compliance under the rules of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1) which (A) state the time within which the defendants must appear and defend; (B) filed-may be served in a judicial district of the United States by (1) following state law for : serving a summons in an action brought in court’s of general jurisdiction; (C) state the name and address of the plaintiffs attorney or-if unrepresented. ; In addition, Appellant asserts that the district court has jurisdiction to hear , Ot claims against defendant Gavin Newsom under FTCA claims. As stated by Circuit Judges Dyk, Taranto and Hughes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal , . Circuit, Case No. 2015-5085 decided on September 14, 2015 Teresita A. Canuto v. : United States: — : “District Courts have jurisdiction over FTCA claims against injury or loss of : property or personal injury or death caused by the neglect or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the government while acting within the scope ; of his office or employment.” . . THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE ; 1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals and the District Court erred when it affirm : ’ the motion for summary affirmance and motion to dismiss of appellee Gavin Newsom. , 2) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed appellant’s claim . : against defendant Gavin Newsom because according to the Court appellant failed to. ) , establish standing pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution because she did not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a causal link between any action or inaction of appellee Newsom and the harms she allegedly suffered at the hands of other : individuals not before the court; that there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complaint.