Franck v. American Express Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 17, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00990
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CIAHRA LANISE FRANCK, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00990-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. et al, 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Ciahra Lanise Franck, who is 17 proceeding pro se, filed her complaint on July 5, 2024, naming American Express Company and 18 Jeff Campbell as Defendants. Dkt. No. 1. A summons was issued as to Defendant American 19 Express on July 9, 2024. Dkt. No. 4. Ms. Franck did not file a summons naming Defendant Jeff 20 Campbell for the Clerk to sign, and therefore no summons as to Mr. Campbell was issued. In the 21 intervening months, no proof of service has been filed and no Defendant has appeared. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 23 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 24 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 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 Ms. Franck has served either Defendant. 10 Although Ms. Franck filed an amended complaint naming these same Defendants on 11 August 8, 2024, Dkt. No. 5, that does not reset the service clock. See, e.g., Contreras v. Wray, No. 12 CV 21-9797-JVS (JPR), 2022 WL 3904004, at *4 n.6 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2022), report and 13 recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 3910472 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022). 14 The Court thus ORDERS Ms. Franck to show cause within 30 days of this Order why the

15 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If Ms. Franck timely 16 serves copies of the summonses and amended complaint and files proof of the same, the Court will 17 discharge this Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 18 Dated this 17th day of October, 2024. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24