Elham Orami v. Henrico County Police Division, et al.

FION RT HTHE EU ENAITSETDE RSNTA DTIESTS RDIICSTT ROIFC VT ICROGUINRITA Richmond Division ELHAM ORAMI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:25cv569 (RCY) ) HENRICO COUNTY POLICE ) DIVISION, et al., ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its March 24, 2026 Order (ECF No. 12), wherein the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause “why the action should not be dismissed with respect to the remaining individual Defendants, as Plaintiff has yet to file any proof of service with respect to these individuals.” ECF No. 12 at 1. Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “represent (1) whether the individual Defendants have in fact been served, accompanied by proof thereof, and, if not, (2) whether good cause exists for the Court to extend the time for Plaintiff to serve the individual Defendants.” Id. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service (“Motion for Extension,” ECF No. 13).1 In that filing, Plaintiff represents that she has not yet served the individual Defendants because (1) she was ordered to undergo a competency evaluation in a related matter and consequently hospitalized from March 24, 2026, through April 10, 2026; and (2) the Henrico County Police Department provided her with only the last names and first initials of the individual Defendants. Mot. Extension 2. For these reasons, Plaintiff represents that good cause justifies both her delay and an extension of time to serve the individual Defendants. Id. The Court disagrees.

1 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), and a Supplemental Notice regarding Service and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 15). The Court does not consider Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), absent a showing of good cause, the Court may dismiss an action if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed.

See also Neale v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238395, at *7 (W.D. Va. Dec. 17, 2020) (“A plaintiff in a case removed to federal court has 90 days from the filing of the notice of removal to serve the proper defendants.”) (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff commenced this action in Circuit Court for the County of Henrico, Virginia on April 29, 2025, against “Henrico Police Division (and its agents), Public Servant Tomas Simon, Public Servant A Medina, Public Servants [sic] Russel, and Public Servant Lafollette.”

Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-1. Only the Henrico Police Division was served with a summons and copy of the pleading. Not. Removal ¶ 2, ECF No. 1. On July 23, 2025, the Henrico Police Division removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. ¶ 5. This is the dispositive date for calculating timely service under Rule 4(m). See Neale, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23895, at *7. Eight months lapsed between the matter being removed to this Court and Plaintiff’s eventual hospitalization—far exceeding Rule 4(m)’s 90-day limit.

Consequently, Plaintiff’s hospitalization does not constitute good cause.2 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to establish good cause and therefore will dismiss the matter, without prejudice, for failure to timely serve the individual Defendants.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ Roderick C. Young Date: May 12, 2026 United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia What’s more, despite Plaintiff’s representations to the contrary, one of the individual Defendants (Tomas