Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00295-TES
12-05-2023
HETALBEN A. PATEL, AJAYKUMAR B. PATEL, and NAVY A A. PATEL, Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Along with payment of the Court's filing fee, Plaintiffs Hetalben Patel, Ajaykumar Patel, and Navya Patel filed a Complaint [Doc. 1] on August 14,2023, against Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, Tracy Renaud, Daniel M. Renaud, and the United States. See [Doc. 1]. However, the docket does not show that Plaintiffs served each Defendant with the required documents within the applicable time period.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to serve each defendant with a copy of both the summons and the complaint unless the defendant waives service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1), (d). Moreover, Rule 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve those copies upon a defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Where a plaintiff fails to timely perfect service of process, a court on its own initiative-after giving notice to the plaintiff (or upon a motion by a defendant.)-must dismiss without prejudice the claims against the non-served defendant(s) or extend the time for serving process. Id.
On November 17,2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to show cause why their complaint should not be dismissed for lack of service on the Defendants within the time limits imposed by Rule 4(m). [Doc. 3]. In that Show Cause Order, the Court also warned Plaintiffs that their failure to properly serve the Defendants within 14 days would result in the dismissal of their case. Id.
Fourteen days have passed and the Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order. Therefore, as the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 4(m) by failing to serve the Defendants within 90 days of filing, the Court dismisses their case against Defendants without prejudice.
SO ORDERED