The opinion of the court was delivered by: Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge
The complaint filed herein on September 26, 2006 was amended on October 2, 2006, to add two additional defendants. Any further amendment would require leave of Court.
Plaintiff alleges he is a resident of Georgia. Every named defendant is in Georgia. Any event about which plaintiff complains occurred in Georgia. The complaint contains no allegations whatsoever of any connection with the District of Columbia. Defendant Atlanta Police has moved  to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as other grounds. Defendants State of Georgia, and Office of the Governor, and Office of the Attorney General have also moved to dismiss  for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as other grounds, and correctly point out that there are no minimum contacts with the District of Columbia that would allow this case to proceed here. Accordingly, both motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [4, 24] are hereby GRANTED.
Moreover, upon sua sponte review of the allegations of the complaint, it is clear that the same holds true of the remaining defendants--this Court cannot, on the allegations of this amended complaint, exercise personal jurisdiction over any of them. Accordingly, the Clerk's entry of default  against defendant Vernice R. Daley is hereby VACATED since this Court has no personal jurisdiction over defendant Daley. The amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED as to Daley and all other defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The State's alternative motion to transfer  is DENIED, since plaintiff could have--but would not have--brought this action in Georgia in the first place.
The State's motion to dismiss  for lack of prosecution is DENIED.
The various motions filed by plaintiff for discovery or default [14, 16, 27, 29, 30, 31] are all DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff's motion  to add four more defendants--all in Georgia--is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion  for leave to file an untimely appeal, lodged with a notice of appeal, is DENIED, as the Court has not--prior to today--entered an appealable Order.
To the extent that plaintiff's motion  for leave to file an appeal out of time might be construed as a motion for recusal, plaintiff's motion for recusal is DENIED.
This action now stands DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION over any named defendant.
This is a final, appealable Order.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...