CLERMONT v. SHANAHAN
| EMIL CLERMONT |
| PATRICK M. SHANAHAN |
| 1:2019cv00958 |
| April 3, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Dabney L Friedrich |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs Must Either Cause Process To Be Served Upon The Defendants And Proof Of Service To Be Filed With The Court or Establish Good Cause For The Failure To Do So due by 8/2/2019. (mac) |
MINUTE ORDER. The pro se plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 3, 2018 against the defendant, Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. As of the date of this order, the public docket reflects that the plaintiffs have yet to file proof of service of any defendant. The Court directs the plaintiffs' attention to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which provides in pertinent part that if 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 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). To avoid the finality of a mandatory dismissal of this action against the defendants, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs must either cause process to be served upon the defendants and proof of service to be filed with the Court, or establish good cause for the failure to do so, on or before August 2, 2019. The failure to make such filings will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order, overnight, to the plaintiffs address of record. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on July 3, 2019.
|
| Filing 3 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM (Part 1 of 5) re #1 Complaint filed by EMIL CLERMONT. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - Part 2 of 5, #2 Exhibit - Part 3 of 5, #3 Exhibit - Part 4 of 5, #4 Exhibit - Part 5 of 5). "Let this be filed" by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 5/3/2019. (tth) |
| Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number: 4616097461. (tth) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by EMIL CLERMONT. Case related to Case No. 19-cv-314 (DLF). (tth) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against PATRICK M. SHANAHAN with Jury Demand filed by EMIL CLERMONT. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (tth) |
| Summons (1) Issued as to PATRICK M. SHANAHAN. (tth) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: CLERMONT v. SHANAHAN | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: PATRICK M. SHANAHAN | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: EMIL CLERMONT | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
