Arumugam v. Does

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT without prejudice by Judge James L. Robart. (MD, mailed copy of order to pltf )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SUBI ARUMUGAM,
Plaintiff,

11

JOHN DOES 1-208,
Defendants.

14
15

ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

v.

12
13

CASE NO. C13-1132JLR

Plaintiff Subi Arumugam’s complaint is dismissed for failure to serve Defendants

16 in a timely manner. Although Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 8, 2013 (Compl. (Dkt.
17 # 1)), he has yet to serve any of the Defendants. On November 20, 2013, the court issued
18 an order to show cause within 14 days why the action should not be dismissed for failure
19 to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (11/20/13 Order (Dkt. # 4).)
20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires plaintiffs to serve defendants with a summons
21 and a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint and sets forth the specific requirements for doing
22
ORDER- 1

1 so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Rule 4(m) provides a 120-day timeframe in which service
2 must be effectuated:
3
4
5

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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, Plaintiff has failed to serve Defendants with a summons and
7 a copy of the Complaint within the timeframe provided in Rule 4(m). Further, more than
8 14 days have passed since the court’s order to show cause, and Plaintiff has done nothing
9 to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve Defendants. Accordingly, the court
10 DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
11

Dated this 3rd day of January, 2014.

12

14

A

15

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER- 2