HARVEY BARTLE III, Chief Judge
On March 8, 2010, pro se plaintiff Maureen E. Leyva ("Leyva") filed a complaint against defendant Philadelphia Municipal Court alleging a violation of her constitutional rights. Before the court is the motion of Leyva requesting default judgment against defendant Philadelphia Municipal Court pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to respond to her complaint.
Although Leyva requested default judgment in a letter addressed to the court dated April 29, 2010, we treat it as a motion.
Entry of default by the clerk pursuant to Rule 55(a) is a prerequisite to the court's granting a motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b). Husain v. Casino Control Comm'n, 265 Fed. App'x 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2008). Leyva has not requested entry of default by the clerk, and no such default has been entered. Accordingly, we will deny her motion for default judgment.
We note that, were Leyva to request entry of default, it too would be denied because she has not properly served the defendant. Under Rule 55, the clerk will enter default against a defendant only if plaintiff shows that, after being properly served, the defendant "failed to plead or otherwise defend." Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a); Evanston Ins. Co. v. Layne Thomas Builders, Inc., No. 08-286-JJF, 2010 WL 1213433, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2010).
In the federal courts, the procedure for serving state governmental entities is governed by Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
A state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created governmental organization that is subject to suit must be served by:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or
(B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j). Under Rule 4(j), there are two methods by which service may be made on the defendant assuming that it is subject to suit. First, a copy of the summons and complaint may be served on its Chief Executive Officer. Second, service may be carried out in the manner prescribed by the state, in this case Pennsylvania, where service of process is sought to be made. See J. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 4.58 (3d ed. 2009). Rule 422 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) Service of original process upon the Commonwealth or an officer of the Commonwealth, or a department, board, commission or instrumentality of the Commonwealth, or a member thereof, shall be made at the office of the defendant and the office of the attorney general by handing a copy to the person in charge thereof.
(b) Service of original process upon a political subdivision shall be made by handing a copy to
(1) an agent duly authorized by the political subdivision to receive service of process, or
(2) the person in charge at the office of the defendant, or
(3) the mayor, or the president, chairman, secretary or clerk of the tax levying body thereof, and in counties where there is no tax levying body, the chairman or clerk of the board of county commissioners.
Pa. R. Civ. P. 422.
Leyva attempted to serve defendant Philadelphia Municipal Court on March 18, 2010 by certified mail, proof of which is attached to her affidavit filed with this court on April 6, 2010. Service by certified mail is insufficient under Rule 4(j)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 422 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, both of which require service by hand delivery. See Barrett v. City of Allentown, 152 F.R.D. 46, 48-49 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
In explaining the method of service, we take no position at this time as to whether the Philadelphia Municipal Court is a governmental body that is subject to suit or whether it is a proper defendant in this action.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2010, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff, Maureen E. Leyva, for default judgment is DENIED.