O'NEAL v. PRETRIAL SERVICES et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing this action for failure to serve process upon the defendants. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on October 9, 2013. (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY, et al. )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
LAFRANCES DUDLEY O’NEAL,

Civil Action No. 13-0179 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 11, 2013, pro se plaintiff LaFrances Dudley O’Neal filed a
complaint alleging violations of her constitutional rights by various federal and non-federal
defendants, in connection with her criminal prosecution for bank fraud. Compl., Dkt. No. 1;
Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 7 (August 9, 2013); see also United States v. O’Neal,
Criminal No. 11-0355-1 (RBW).
There is no record that a copy of the complaint has been served on any of the
defendants. The non-federal defendants, who presumably are unaware of this lawsuit’s
existence, have not responded to Ms. O’Neal’s complaint. The federal defendants, by contrast,
filed a motion to dismiss on April 5, 2013. Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 3. The federal defendants
contend that Ms. O’Neal’s complaint must be dismissed for several independent reasons,
including failure to properly complete service of process. Mot. to Dismiss at 1-2. On May 8,
2013, this Court issued an order advising Ms. O’Neal of the consequences of failing to respond

to a dispositive motion, and instructing her to respond to the federal defendants’ motion no later
than May 29, 2013. See Order, Dkt. No. 4. 1
On May 29, 2013, Ms. O’Neal filed a motion to strike the federal defendants’
motion to dismiss. See Mot. to Strike, Dkt. No. 5. Ms. O’Neal’s motion consisted of a single
sentence, and did not substantively respond to the specific assertions made in the federal
defendants’ motion.
On August 9, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order,
explaining the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules and directing Ms. O’Neal to show
cause in writing by September 4, 2013, as to why her complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to serve the defendants within 120 days after the complaint was filed. In addition, the
Court again advised Ms. O’Neal of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive
motion, and directed her to respond to the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss no later than
September 4, 2013. Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 7. The Court made clear that a
failure to respond may result in the Court’s treating the dispositive motion as conceded and that a
failure to provide proof of service would lead to dismissal of the complaint. Id.
The September 4, 2013 deadlines have passed, and the plaintiff has failed to
provide evidence of service, respond to federal defendants’ motion, or file anything further with
the Court. The Court therefore will dismiss this action for failure to serve process upon the

1

This Order was issued by Judge John D. Bates. The case subsequently was
transferred to the undersigned on June 20, 2013.
2

defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 9, 2013

/s/_______________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

3