Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01010/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

16-cv-01010-H-WVG 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZINIA EZZET BOUTROS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-cv-01010-H-WVG 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff Zinia Boutros filed a complaint against Defendants 

President Barack Obama, President George Bush, President Bill Clinton, and First Lady 

Hillary Clinton. (Doc. No. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service showing 

that she has served the Defendants with the complaint and summons in this action. 

Accordingly, on November 2, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action 

should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m) and Civil Local Rule 41.1. (Doc. Nos. 3, 4.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant 

is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own 

after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 

41.1.a (“Actions or proceedings which have been pending in this court for more than six 

Case 3:16-cv-01010-H-WVG Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

16-cv-01010-H-WVG 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such period, 

may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution, at the calling of a 

calendar prepared for that purpose by the clerk. Such a dismissal must be without 

prejudice, unless otherwise ordered.”). 

 On November 14, 2016, the Court held a hearing regarding the OSC. Plaintiff Zinia 

Boutros proceeding pro se appeared at the hearing. At the hearing, Plaintiff explained the 

methods she had used to attempt to serve the Defendants in this action, but none of the 

methods complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. 

v. Dugdale Communications, Inc., No. 09-cv-2140 PSG (JCx), 2009 WL 3346784, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2009) (“Under the federal rules, the summons must comply with Rule 

4(a), and the summons and complaint must be served by a process permitted by Rule 4.”); 

see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.3d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Because the Rule 4(m) deadline 

has passed, and the Defendants have not been properly served in this action, the Court 

dismisses the action. 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the 

action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Civil Local 

Rule 41.1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2016 

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

                                                                

1

 The Court notes that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court must extend the time 

for service of the complaint and summons for an appropriate period “if the plaintiff shows good cause 

for the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Based on the statements made by Plaintiff at the hearing and the 

Court’s sua sponte review of the sufficiency of the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint, the 

Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for an extension of the time for service. See 

Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that the “good cause” exception to 

Rule 4(m) applies “only in limited circumstances” and is not satisfied by “inadvertent error or ignorance 

of the governing rules”). 

Case 3:16-cv-01010-H-WVG Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2