Su v. Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center & POM
Filing
45
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Plaintiff has not complied as directed. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/16/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-04194 EJD
DANTAO SU,
11
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
v.
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER, et. al.,
14
15
Defendant(s).
/
16
17
On September 20, 2012, the court ordered Plaintiff Dantao Su (“Plaintiff”) to produce to the
18
clerk of the court two Summons forms, one for the United States Attorney for the Northern District
19
of California and one for the United States Attorney General, so that service of process could be
20
accomplished in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). See Docket Item No.
21
42. As noted by the court, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant’s status as a federal agency forms the
22
basis for federal jurisdiction. Id.; see also Compl., Docket Item No. 1, at ¶ 1. The court further
23
explained that absent such status on the part of Defendant, federal subject matter jurisdiction over
24
Plaintiff’s claims would not arise. Id. The court also admonished Plaintiff that this case would be
25
dismissed if she did not comply with order to produce the Summons forms. Id.
26
As of this date, Plaintiff has not complied as directed. Moreover, Plaintiff’s more recent
27
filings reveal she maintains the position that service on the United States Attorney and Attorney
28
General are unnecessary. However, in light of the jurisdictional quandary identified above as well
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-04194 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
1
as the fact that Plaintiff herself has alleged Defendant’s status as a federal agency, this court cannot
2
proceed with this matter further under the current circumstances.
3
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of
4
Civil Procedure 4(m).1 The Clerk shall close this file.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: October 16, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Although the court previously indicated it would dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), it now finds it more appropriate to
dismiss for lack of service under Rule 4(m).
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-04194 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?