Ames v. Radzimski

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON May 05, 2023 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON RANDALL S. AMES, NO. 2:22-CV-0290-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. JUDGE LECH J. RADZIMSKI, individually and in his official capacity; WESLEY BRUCE AMES, individually and in his marital community (if applicable); STANLEY ROY AMES, individually and in his marital community and in his official capacity as agent for Ames Development Corp.; MERITA LYNN DYSART, individually and in her marital community; DELTON J.

15 DYSART, individually and in his marital community; JUDGE GINA TVEIT, individually and in her official capacity; JUDGE/COMMISSIONER ALLEN C.

17 NEILSON, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE TIMOTHY B.

18 FENNESSY, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE TONY HAZEL, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE JOHN O. COONEY, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE RAYMOND F. CLARY, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE ANNETTE S. PLEASE, individually and in her official capacity; SHERIFF DEPUTY GREGORY GOWEN, individually and in his official capacity; DENNIS PARENT, individually and in his marital community; SHERIFF DEPUTY E. MIDDLESWORTH, individually and in his official capacity; COURT ADMINISTRATOR EVELYN BELL, individually and in her official capacity; PAMELA RAY, individually and in her official capacity; PATRICIA CLARK, individually and in her official capacity; DELINA DYSART, individually and in her official capacity; SHERIFF DEPUTY ERIC PETERSON, individually and in his official capacity; JOHN HASKELL, Spokane County District Attorney, individually and in his official capacity; ARLENE HANSEN, individually and in her marital community; LOWETA MEDFORD, individually and in her marital community; MICHELLE GAGNON-ENRIGHT, Stevens County Washington Court Clerk, individually and in her official capacity; and TIM RASMUSSEN, Stevens County Washington Prosecuting Attorney, individually and in his official capacity; Defendants.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) which was filed on November 23, 2022 and which appears not to have been properly served on any of the Defendants. This case has now languished for 163 days.

1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires the Plaintiff to serve the Summons and Complaint on each Defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed or suffer dismissal. Specifically, Rule 4(m) provides: 5 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 6 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff 7 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Rule 4(m) requires the court to extend the time for service if a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to timely serve the complaint. Id. Plaintiff has shown no cause whatsoever to extend the time for service.

13 On April 20, 2023, this Court entered an Order Requiring Plaintiff to Provide Proof of Service. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was given 14-days to comply.

15 Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order. Plaintiff was warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to timely serve and prosecute the case absent compliance with the Court’s Order.

18 // // // ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 All claims and causes of action in this matter are DISMISSED without prejudice.

4 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and 5|| Judgment accordingly, furnish copies to Plaintiff at his last known address, and 6|| CLOSE the file.

7 DATED May 5, 2023.

9 wh THOMAS Ck <> United States District Judge