Plange et al v. United State Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that all claims against the Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. A corresponding judgment shall follow. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/25/2021.(JJ)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
FRANKFORT
SAMUEL PLANGE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:20-45-KKC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. The Court ordered Plaintiffs
Samuel Plange and Maame Araba West to Show Cause within 14 days why this matter
should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s rule
regarding service of process. (DE 8). Pursuant to Rule 4:
[i]f 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 dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service
be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for
the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) (emphasis added).
In the June 3, 2021 Show Cause Order, the parties were warned that failure to
respond to the order could lead to dismissal. (DE 8) See Choate v. Emerton, No. 2:16-cv-37,
2018 WL 3656505, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018
WL 4076955 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 27, 2018). Since its filing, the Court has received no response.
The record does, however, reflect that plaintiffs have since obtained counsel (see DE 9, Notice
of Appearance of Wael Ahmad). Yet, since entry of appearance, counsel has neither shown
cause on his clients’ behalf nor sought good cause to extend time for service.

Given the pendency of this case and the lack of prosecution since the filing of this case
on June 15, 2020, dismissal of the matter is warranted pursuant to the Court's inherent
“authority to dismiss [an action] sua sponte ... for failure to prosecute[,]”. Carpenter v. City of
Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added).
In view the Court’s preference for disposing a case on the merits, the Court finds that
dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate disposition. See Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.,
261 F.3d 586, 591 (6th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that all claims
against the Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. A corresponding judgment shall
follow.
Dated June 25, 2021