Silbaugh v. The Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement telling the Court why the time limit for service should be extended in this case. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Failure to file will result in dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's Motion to Correct the Identity of the Named Defendant (Dkt. # 13 ) is STRICKEN as procedurally improper. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (TH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ALISHA R SILBAUGH,

v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

Case No. C18-569 RSM

Plaintiffs,

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Alisha Silbaugh has named as

14
15

Defendants the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service Special Agent

16

John Dean in his official capacity, and three unidentified officers. Dkt. #5. No Defendant has

17

appeared in this matter.

18
19
20

Plaintiff Silbaugh filed this case on April 16, 2018. Dkt. #1. The Complaint was posted
on the docket on April 19, 2018. Dkt. #5. Summonses were provided to Plaintiff on May 14,

21

2018, with a letter explaining how to fill them out. Dkt. #11. The following day, Ms. Silbaugh

22

submitted purported proof of service. See Dkt. #12. This proof of service indicates that Ms.

23

Silbaugh served unsigned summonses on the Department of Homeland Security via email and

24

via mail to John Dean in the Federal Protective Service in Washington, D.C.

25
26

The above evidence of service indicates a failure to properly serve under Federal Rule of

27

Civil Procedure 4. Specifically, it appears that Ms. Silbaugh has not served the United States

28

under that Rule, and that she has failed to serve signed summonses. This explains why no

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

Defendant has appeared. Further, the time limit for service has now passed. Under Rule 4(m),

2

the Court must dismiss this action without prejudice or order that service be made within a

3

specific time, “unless plaintiff shows good cause for the failure.”

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The Court finds that Ms. Silbaugh has failed to comply with the time limit of Rule 4(m)
and failed to prosecute her case. In Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain
statement telling the Court why the time limit for service should be extended in this case. This
Response may not exceed six (6) pages.
The Court notes that Ms. Silbaugh filed a Motion to Correct the Identity of the Named
Defendant on August 13, 2018. Dkt. #13. Ms. Silbaugh is requesting to amend her Complaint,
however she has not included a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit. This is

13

required by Local Civil Rule 15. Accordingly, this Motion will be stricken as procedurally

14

improper. Although Ms. Silbaugh is free to refile this Motion according to the procedures set

15

forth in Local Civil Rule 15, the Court will not address any future motions from Ms. Silbaugh

16

until after reviewing Ms. Silbaugh’s Response to this Order to Show Cause.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1) Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than fourteen (14)
days from the date of this Order. Failure to file will result in dismissal of this case.
2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Identity of the Named Defendant (Dkt. #13) is
STRICKEN as procedurally improper.
DATED this 15th day of August 2018.

25

A

26

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2