UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Lamar Christopher Chapman, III, : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 17-1735 (CKK) : L.R. Heath et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION On April 23, 2018, the Court dismissed this in forma pauperis action brought pro se because plaintiff had failed to provide defendants’ full names and addresses to enable the court officers to effect service of process. See Order [Dkt. 19]. Plaintiff appealed. Based on a submission appended to plaintiff’s appellate brief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the case for this Court to consider the document. It suggested that plaintiff may have timely complied with the order to provide the full name and address for each defendant being sued and proposed that plaintiff be allowed to file the document so that this Court could “consider whether the complaint was properly dismissed” and “conduct further proceedings as appropriate.” Judgment, No. 18-5169 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2019). On remand, plaintiff was directed to file the document that was before the Court of Appeals. See May 21, 2019 Order [Dkt. # 39]. In response, plaintiff submitted a “Notice of Filing” containing an assortment of documents [Dkt. # 40]. The Court has retrieved for review and filing in this case the document from the appellate court’s file. No. 18-5169, Document 1 #1752248 at 50-51. For the reasons that follow, the Court is satisfied that the dismissal was proper. II. ANALYSIS In the “Registry of Defendants” appended to plaintiff’s brief in the Court of Appeals, plaintiff lists: (1) “Rural Route 276, Loretto, Pennsylvania” as the address for four of the six named defendants, including “Mr. John Doe R. Duclos”; (2) “United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C. 20523-0001” as the address for “John Doe L.R. Heate Inspector General”; and (3) “c/o Director/ Secretary of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Government Campus, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001” as the address for defendant Barry Soetoro “ ‘Born Alien’-at-Large.” Plaintiff has sued each defendant in his or her “Personal Capacity,” Compl. Caption, which generally requires personal service by “(A) delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each” to the individual’s authorized agent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). To effect personal service, the U.S. Marshal would need a physical address that plaintiff still has not supplied. Several other reasons inform the Court’s decision. First, Barry Soetoro is a variation of “a name associated [often derisively] with former President Barack Obama.” Chapman v. Mehta, No. 17-cv-2812, Mem. Op. at 2 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2018). See Compl. at 10-11 1 (“Barry Soetro is a Charlatan . . . Born Alien Deportable Immigrant [and] for the past 47 uninterrupted years criminally impersonating a United States citizen . . . .”); Chapman ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals