Court Opinion

ID: 9894892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 16:01:50.895427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:56.250796
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                          )
CEDRIC THOMPSON,                          )
                                          )
            Plaintiff,                    )
                                          )
      v.                                  )      Civil Action No. 23-cv-2404 (TSC)
                                          )
                                          )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;                 )
AARON GUY DURDEN,                         )
                                          )
            Defendants.                   )
                                          )

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of removal from the District of

Columbia Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended

Complaint on August 23, 2023, claiming Defendants prevented him from obtaining

compensation owed to him by the Veterans Administration. ECF No. 4. On August 28,

2023, this court filed a Minute Order providing that:

      Based on the docket filings in this action, it appears that Plaintiff has failed
      to properly serve Defendant United States. Plaintiff is hereby reminded of
      his obligation to serve a copy of the summons and complaint in a manner
      that complies with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No
      later than September 28, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve the United States in a
      manner that complies with the federal and local rules, or otherwise show
      good cause for the failure. Failure to comply with this order and the federal
      rules may result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The
      Clerk of the Court is directed to mail of this order to Plaintiff at his record
      of address.

      A copy of the Minute Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record.

                                        Page 1 of 3
          In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment, ECF No. 7, that

did not address service of process. Then court then issued a Minute Order reminding

Plaintiff of his obligations to follow the Federal and Local rules and ordering that

Plaintiff show cause, on or before October 20, 2023, regarding “what efforts Plaintiff

has made to effectuate service of process,” and warning that “[s]hould Plaintiff fail to

effectuate service or to satisfactorily respond to the present order by 10/20/23, the court

may dismiss this action without further notice.” Min. Order, Oct. 5, 2023. The Minute

Order was again mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record. As of this writing, Plaintiff

has not responded to the Show Cause Order or served process on Defendant United

States.

          This court has “inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute.” Peterson v. Archstone Cmtys. LLC, 637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir.

2011); Local Civil Rule 83.23 (“A dismissal for failure to prosecute may be ordered by

the Court … upon the Court’s own motion.”). “A dismissal for failure to prosecute due

to a delay in service is appropriate ‘only when there is no reasonable probability that

service can be obtained or there is a lengthy period of inactivity.’” Ofisi v. BNP

Paribas, S.A., 285 F. Supp. 3d 240, 243–44 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Angellino v. Royal

Fam. Al-Saud, 688 F.3d 771, 775 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). This is one such case. Unlike

cases where plaintiffs have informed the court of the steps they have taken to try to

serve the defendant, e.g., Ofisi, 285 F. Supp. 3d at 244, Plaintiff has not complied with

instructions in multiple court orders mailed to his address. As a result, he has “not

manifested reasonable diligence in pursuing” his case, and dismissal for failure to

                                          Page 2 of 3
prosecute is appropriate. See James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87

(D.D.C. 2017) (dismissing for failure to prosecute where plaintiff failed to serve the

defendant or respond to multiple court orders).

      Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. An Order will accompany this Opinion.

Date: November 3, 2023

                                         Tanya S. Chutkan
                                         TANYA S. CHUTKAN
                                         United States District Judge

                                       Page 3 of 3