Bosh v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This case is now closed. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ARLY DENVER BOSH,
Case No. C16-1721RSM
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

12

Defendant.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s February 28, 2018 Minute

15

Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. #8. In

16

that Order the Court stated that Plaintiff did not appear to be prosecuting this case as the

17
18
19
20

Complaint was filed on November 7, 2016, and Plaintiff has never provided evidence of proper
service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or taken any other action since
January 9, 2017.

21

In the Court’s January 20, 2017 Order Denying Motion for Default, Plaintiff was directed

22

that his word that “service of process was had on the defendant on 7 November 2016” was not

23

sufficient. Dkt. #6. Further, the Court explained specific deficiencies and directed Plaintiff to

24
25

the specific portions of Rule 4 addressing proper service on the Department of Veterans Affairs
and the United States.

26
27
ORDER – 1

1

Over a year has passed since that Order. Plaintiff has taken no action in this case since,

2

has failed to satisfy obligations under the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. #7), and has not served

3

the Defendant within the 90 days set under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m). While

4

Plaintiff has responded to the Court’s Minute Order to Show Cause and explained Plaintiff’s

5
6

circumstances and intent to prosecute the case, Plaintiff has not established good cause for the
failure to properly serve the Defendant in the past year and has not provided any indication that

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Defendant will be properly served in the future. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the action
without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m). In so ruling, the Court takes no position on the underlying
merits of Plaintiff’s case.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #9) and the record
herein, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
2. This case is now CLOSED.
DATED this 29th day of March 2018.

17

A

18

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER – 2