Palma Beltran v. U.S. Department of Justice
This text of Palma Beltran v. U.S. Department of Justice (Palma Beltran v. U.S. Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CUAUHTEMOC PALMA BELTRAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 23-03349 (AHA) v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.
Memorandum Opinion
Plaintiff Cuauhtemoc Palma Beltran, joined by several other pro se plaintiffs, filed this
action on October 25, 2023. Despite multiple reminders and extensions, Plaintiffs have failed to
serve Defendants with process as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and, as a result,
have failed to prosecute this case. This matter is therefore dismissed without prejudice.
On December 11, 2023, roughly a month and a half after the first complaint was filed, the
Court reminded Plaintiffs of their obligation to serve Defendants with process under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4.1 The Court explained that “Plaintiffs’ deadline to serve Defendants has not
yet passed” and that “nothing in this Order requires Plaintiffs to do anything more than is required
under Rule 4.” ECF No. 3 at 2. Despite the Court’s reminder, Plaintiffs missed their service
deadline. The Court accordingly issued an order on January 24, 2024, instructing Plaintiffs to show
cause why the Court should not dismiss the case. Minute Order (Jan. 24, 2024).
1 This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Ana C. Reyes and was reassigned to the undersigned on November 27, 2024. Without showing cause, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 11. The Court
identified several deficiencies in that filing and ordered Plaintiffs to file a second amended
complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and serve it on Defendants by
July 8, 2024. ECF No. 13 at 2, 8. Without filing an amended complaint and with time left still to
file it and serve, Plaintiffs asked the Court to either order the United States Marshals Service to
effect service of process on their behalf or extend the service deadline by one hundred days. ECF
No. 15 at 8. The Court denied this motion on the basis that the deadline had not yet passed and
reminded Plaintiffs that they could ask for an extension later if they had good cause. Minute Order
(Apr. 3, 2024). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which the Court
found to be deficient as well. ECF No. 17; Minute Order (Apr. 22, 2024). The Court provided
Plaintiffs with an additional opportunity to cure the problems and set a new service deadline of
July 22, 2024. Minute Order (Apr. 22, 2024).
On June 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. ECF No. 20. The Court
ordered Plaintiffs to file proof that Defendants were served within ninety days of the complaint
being docketed. Minute Order (June 28, 2024). Plaintiffs moved to extend the service deadline
further, and the Court granted the motion. Minute Order (Sept. 23, 2024). After missing their new
deadline by twelve days, Plaintiffs moved for another extension of time to serve. ECF No. 24. The
Court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiffs to serve the third amended complaint on
Defendants by January 31, 2025. Minute Order (Jan. 14, 2025). The Court warned Plaintiffs that
failure to serve “may lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” Id. That
deadline has now long passed, and Plaintiffs have taken no action since.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days
after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
2 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time.” Additionally, the Court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute “upon the
Court’s own motion.” Local Civ. R. 83.23; see Peterson v. Archstone Communities LLC, 637 F.3d
416, 418 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“District courts have inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with a court order.”). In total, 496 days have
passed since this case was filed, and Plaintiffs have yet to serve a complaint on Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. A separate order consistent with
this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion.
AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge
Date: March 4, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Palma Beltran v. U.S. Department of Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palma-beltran-v-us-department-of-justice-dcd-2025.