Court Opinion

ID: 9408426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 19:02:32.862718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.848562
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 SYLVESTER N. OTIJI,

                        Plaintiff,                  Civil Action No. 23-380 (JMC)

        v.

 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
 COLUMBIA - WDLL,

                        Defendant.

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on February 9, 2023. ECF 1. On April 25, 2023, the

Court issued a Minute Order instructing Plaintiff that the 90-day service deadline would expire on

May 10, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). After that deadline passed, the Court issued a Minute

Order instructing Plaintiff to show cause, by June 2, 2023, why the Complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to effect timely service. Plaintiff never responded to that Minute Order, nor

has he ever requested an extension of time to serve Defendant.

       On June 12, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5).

ECF 5. That Motion acknowledges that Plaintiff served documents on Defendant on May 24, 2023,

id. at 4, but argues that the attempted service was ineffective for three reasons. First, Defendant

contends service was untimely because it occurred two weeks past the 90-day deadline. In

Defendant’s view, the Court should dismiss the case because Plaintiff has shown no good cause

why he should be given extra time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Id. at 6. Second, Defendant contends

that process was insufficient because the summons lacked both the clerk’s signature and the seal

of the Court, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(F)–(G). Id. at 7. Finally, Defendant contends

that service was incomplete because the documents that were served did not include the original

                                                1
Complaint, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). Id. at 8. After the Motion to Dismiss was

docketed, the Court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff that he was obligated to file any opposition

to the Motion by July 10, 2023, and that if he failed to do so, the Court could consider the

arguments in the Motion conceded and dismiss the case. ECF 6 (citing Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d

507 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). 1

         Despite the Court’s Order, Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

Instead, on July 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Notice.” ECF 11. That Notice consists of emails

exchanged with a process server involving the server’s failed attempts to serve Defendant’s

attorney of record, and it accuses Defendant of evading service in the case. Id. Plaintiff does not

appear to understand that his obligations are to serve Defendant or an authorized agent, not the

Defendant’s attorney (unless that attorney has agreed to accept service). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).

Moreover, Plaintiff has still provided the Court with no reason why it should not dismiss the case

for his failure to meet the original 90-day deadline; these latest attempts at service are occurring a

full two months after that deadline expired. Given the above, the Court is inclined to find that

Plaintiff’s renewed attempts at (belated) service are an acknowledgement that his original attempt

at service was deficient.

         For the above reasons, the Court deems the arguments made by Defendant in its Motion to

Dismiss, ECF 5, conceded and GRANTS the Motion. The Complaint, ECF 1, and the case are

DISMISSED.

         This is a final, appealable order.

         SO ORDERED.

         DATE: July 12, 2023

1
 This case was initially filed as a pro se action, although an attorney signed the Civil Cover Sheet submitted with the
Complaint. ECF 1-3 at 2. After the Court sought clarification, an attorney entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff.

                                                           2
    Jia M. Cobb
    U.S. District Court Judge

3