Church of the Gardens v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

W.D. Washington

Church of the Gardens v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01010

StatusUnknown

This text of Church of the Gardens v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Church of the Gardens v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) 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

Church of the Gardens v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, (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 CHURCH OF THE GARDENS et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01010-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs Church of the Gardens and two 17 of its members filed their complaint on July 9, 2024, naming as Defendants the Ninth Circuit Court 18 of Appeals, Molly Dwyer, and John and Jane Does 1-10. Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued summons 19 for the named Defendants on July 11, 2024. Dkt. No. 2. In the intervening months, no proof of 20 service has been filed and no Defendant has appeared. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 22 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 23 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 24 1 general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 2 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, 3 see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 4 Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid

5 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power 6 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 7 (1962); see also, e.g., Ville v. Meridian at Stone Creek Assisted Living, No. C17-913-MJP, 2017 8 WL 4700340, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). More than 90 days have passed since the 9 complaint was filed, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs have served any Defendant. Nor have 10 Plaintiffs filed anything in this case since July 2024. 11 The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days of this Order why the 12 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If they timely serve 13 copies of the summons and complaint and file proof of the same, the Court will discharge this 14 Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.

15 Dated this 1st day of May, 2025. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 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 CHURCH OF THE GARDENS et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01010-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs Church of the Gardens and two 17 of its members filed their complaint on July 9, 2024, naming as Defendants the Ninth Circuit Court 18 of Appeals, Molly Dwyer, and John and Jane Does 1-10. Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued summons 19 for the named Defendants on July 11, 2024. Dkt. No. 2. In the intervening months, no proof of 20 service has been filed and no Defendant has appeared. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 22 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 23 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 24 1 general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 2 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, 3 see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 4 Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid

5 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power 6 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 7 (1962); see also, e.g., Ville v. Meridian at Stone Creek Assisted Living, No. C17-913-MJP, 2017 8 WL 4700340, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). More than 90 days have passed since the 9 complaint was filed, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs have served any Defendant. Nor have 10 Plaintiffs filed anything in this case since July 2024. 11 The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days of this Order why the 12 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If they timely serve 13 copies of the summons and complaint and file proof of the same, the Court will discharge this 14 Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.

15 Dated this 1st day of May, 2025. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Church of the Gardens v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/church-of-the-gardens-v-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack