EVERETT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION Dismissing Complaint as to Defendants Carol W. Anderson, Kim Westbrook Strach, United States Department of Justice, Eric H. Holder, Jr., North Carolina State Board of Elections, and the State of North Carolina and Directing the Clerk of the Court to Close This Case. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 08/21/2015. (lcrc3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN EVERETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No.:

14-1694 (RC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANTS CAROL W. ANDERSON, KIM WESTBROOK
STRACH, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., NORTH CAROLINA
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AND DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE
Plaintiff John Everett filed this civil action on October 9, 2014. See ECF No. 1. On
October 10, 2014, the Clerk of the Court issued summonses. On June 30, 2015, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before July 30, 2015 why this case should not be dismissed
without prejudice as to Defendants Carol W. Anderson, Kim Westbrook Strach, the United
States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Eric H. Holder, Jr., the North Carolina State Board of
Elections, and the State of North Carolina, the only remaining Defendants in this action. See
Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 48. Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Court’s Order or
requested an extension of time to respond. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint as to these Defendants without prejudice and direct the Clerk to close this
case.
The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice as to Defendants Anderson,
Strach, DOJ, and Holder pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to

effect service and Local Civil Rule 83.23 for failure to prosecute. As the Court explained in its
Order to Show Cause, plaintiffs not proceeding in forma pauperis are responsible for effecting
service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). It does not appear from the record that Plaintiff has
properly effected service on these Defendants. Additionally, with respect to Defendants DOJ
and Holder, it does not appear that that Plaintiff has served the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia in accordance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m) (“To serve the United States, a party must . . . deliver a copy of the summons and of
the complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is brought . . . .”). “If
a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on
its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that
defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). The 120-day period has long
since passed, and dismissal is appropriate.
The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice as to Defendants the North
Carolina State Board of Elections and the State of North Carolina (the “North Carolina
Defendants”) for failure to establish personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff has made not many any
showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the North Carolina Defendants. See Am.
Action Network, Inc. v. Cater Am., LLC, 983 F. Supp. 2d 112, 118 (D.D.C. 2013) (explaining
that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over
defendants); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k). Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate as to the North
Carolina Defendants.
Dismissal is also appropriate as to all of the remaining Defendants due to Plaintiff’s
failure to show cause in accordance with the Court’s Order. In its June 30, 2015 Order to Show
Cause, the Court informed Plaintiff of the foregoing grounds for dismissing this case. See Order

to Show Cause. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed
on these grounds on or before July 30, 2015. That deadline has long since passed, and Plaintiff
has neither filed any response to the Court’s Order nor requested an extension of time to file a
response. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause further demonstrates his
failure to prosecute this case and is an independent ground for dismissal. See LCvR 83.23.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice as to
Defendants Anderson, Strach, DOJ, Holder, and the North Carolina Defendants. The Court
previously dismissed the Complaint as to all of the other named Defendants. See Order, ECF
No. 40 (dismissing the Complaint as to Defendants the Durham County Board of Elections, the
County of Durham, and Michael D. Page); Order, ECF No. 42 (dismissing the Complaint as to
Defendant Hartford Insurance Company); Order, ECF No. 44 (dismissing the Complaint as to
Defendant Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland); Order, ECF No. 46 (dismissing the
Complaint as to Defendants the City of Durham and Mayor William Bell). Therefore, the Court
will also direct the Clerk of the Court to close this case. An order consistent with this
memorandum opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.
Dated: August 21, 2015

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge