1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARK ELLIOTT FREEMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Civil Action No. 11-1046 (JEB) 

HUGO CHARVIS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Mark Elliott Freeman filed his utterly incomprehensible Complaint on 

June 6, 2011. This pleading named 78 Defendants, including “Hugo Charvis” [Chavez?] and 

“Mummad Khaddfi,” both of whom were described, along with most other Defendants, as living 

in the U.S. Virgin Islands. After listing all of the Defendants for nineteen pages, Plaintiff’s 

actual allegations cover only three pages, but mention everything from the alteration of his New 

Jersey high school records to his decision to decline matching funds when running for President 

of the United States to a settlement conference in the Virgin Islands to his request for 46 trillion 

dollars. See Complaint at 20-22. 

 Seventy-eight summonses were issued to Plaintiff by the Clerk, and one month later, he 

returned about half of them in an envelope, on which was scrawled “refuse summons etc.” See 

ECF No. 2 at 41. It is unclear whether he was refusing the summonses himself or whether 

certain Defendants had refused service. He apparently had mailed the Complaint to at least two 

Defendants, who thereafter separately moved to dismiss on a number of grounds. (One also 

explained, for the Court’s edification, that what underlies this lawsuit is a 1995 settlement 

conference in the Virgin Islands in which Plaintiff took part. See ECF No. 6 (Motion of 
2 

Defendant Todd Newman to Dismiss) at 2-3.) When Plaintiff failed to oppose either Motion to 

Dismiss, despite warnings from the Court that failure to do so could lead to dismissal, the Court 

granted both Motions as conceded on Aug. 25 and Sept. 23, 2011, respectively. See ECF Nos. 

10-11, 15-16. 

 As Plaintiff had meanwhile failed to provide proof of service on any Defendant within 

the 120 days required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), the Court, on Oct. 4, 2011, ordered him to provide 

proof of service by Oct. 25, 2011, or show cause why the case should not be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Minute Order, Oct. 4, 2011. Plaintiff never responded. 

 Under Rule 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 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.” 

The Court, therefore, afforded Plaintiff that notice on Oct. 4, but has heard nothing from him, 

rendering dismissal appropriate. See Sabbagh v. United Arab Emirates, 87 Fed. Appx. 188 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004) (“The district court properly dismissed the action against appellee Alami as well, as 

no proof of service or explanation for the lack of service was filed within 120 days of the 

action’s commencement.”) (citations omitted); Thomas v. Shinseki, 2009 WL 2414419, at *1 

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion to dismiss defendants who were not served within Rule 

4(m)’s timeframe). 

To the extent Plaintiff’s return of half of the summonses almost four months ago is meant 

to imply that those Defendants refused service, he has not so informed the Court, which should 

not be in the business of guessing the meaning of a plaintiff’s correspondence, even a pro se one. 

In any event, under Rule 4(l), “[u]nless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the 

court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the 
3 

server’s affidavit.” No affidavit or any form of proof has been offered, even regarding 

unsuccessful attempts at service. Finally, since all named Defendants are alleged to reside in 

either New Jersey or St. Croix, which is in a judicial district of the United States, foreign service 

rules do not apply. 

The Court, accordingly, will issue a contemporaneous Order dismissing the case without 

prejudice under Rule 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ James E. Boasberg 

 JAMES E. BOASBERG 

 United States District Judge 

Date: October 27, 2011