Alfarag v. United States Customs and Border Protection

W.D. Washington

Alfarag v. United States Customs and Border Protection

DecidedApril 29, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02017

StatusUnknown

This text of Alfarag v. United States Customs and Border Protection (Alfarag v. United States Customs and Border Protection) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfarag v. United States Customs and Border Protection, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MAJID ALFARAG, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02017-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On December 10, 2024, pro se Plaintiff 17 Majid Alfarag’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and his complaint was 18 docketed. Dkt. Nos. 4–5. In the intervening months, summonses have not issued and no Defendant 19 has appeared. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 21 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 22 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 23 general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 24 1 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, 2 see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 3 Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 4 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power

5 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 6 (1962); see also, e.g., Ville v. Meridian at Stone Creek Assisted Living, No. C17-913-MJP, 2017 7 WL 4700340, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). More than 90 days have passed since the 8 complaint was filed, and there is no indication that Mr. Alfarag has served either Defendant. 9 The Court thus ORDERS Mr. Alfarag to show cause within 60 days of this Order why the 10 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If Mr. Alfarag timely 11 serves copies of the summonses and complaint and files proof of the same, the Court will discharge 12 this Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 13 Resources for pro se plaintiffs proceeding in this district are available at 14 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se. Among other things, these

15 resources cover how to obtain a summons and how to complete service. 16 17 Dated this 29th day of April, 2025. 18 A 19 Lauren King United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MAJID ALFARAG, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02017-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On December 10, 2024, pro se Plaintiff 17 Majid Alfarag’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and his complaint was 18 docketed. Dkt. Nos. 4–5. In the intervening months, summonses have not issued and no Defendant 19 has appeared. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 21 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 22 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 23 general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 24 1 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, 2 see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 3 Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 4 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power

5 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 6 (1962); see also, e.g., Ville v. Meridian at Stone Creek Assisted Living, No. C17-913-MJP, 2017 7 WL 4700340, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). More than 90 days have passed since the 8 complaint was filed, and there is no indication that Mr. Alfarag has served either Defendant. 9 The Court thus ORDERS Mr. Alfarag to show cause within 60 days of this Order why the 10 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If Mr. Alfarag timely 11 serves copies of the summonses and complaint and files proof of the same, the Court will discharge 12 this Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 13 Resources for pro se plaintiffs proceeding in this district are available at 14 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se. Among other things, these

15 resources cover how to obtain a summons and how to complete service. 16 17 Dated this 29th day of April, 2025. 18 A 19 Lauren King United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alfarag v. United States Customs and Border Protection, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfarag-v-united-states-customs-and-border-protection-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack