Cole v. Haines, Civil Action 21-2599 (TJK)

• Court: United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge.
• Parties: BIANCA COLE, Plaintiff, v. AVRIL HAINES et al., Defendants.
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-2599 (TJK)
• Decision Date: 27 July 2022

BIANCA COLE, Plaintiff,
v.
AVRIL HAINES et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-2599 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

July 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM ORDER

TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge.

Bianca Cole, an alleged former government employee and contractor, sued the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., CACI International Inc., and Perspecta/Peraton.^[1] She alleges that Defendants directed several discriminatory or otherwise unlawful acts at her. Each-except Perspecta/Peraton, which Cole never served-now moves to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the case.

* * *

In her complaint, Cole, proceeding pro se, appears to allege that between 2014 and 2021 she worked for CACI International, Perspecta/Peraton, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the CIA, and that she sometimes interacted with Booz Allen Hamilton employees. See ECF No. 1; ECF No. 18-1 at 30-35.^[2] She claims that these entities harassed and discriminated

1

against her because of her race, religion, color, gender/sex, and national origin. See ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 18-1 at 30-35. She allegedly pursued administrative action over this harassment and discrimination twice, to no avail. See ECF No. 1 at 6; ECF No. 18-1 at 30, 32.

On September 30, 2021, Cole then filed this suit. ECF No. 1. She purports to bring claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83, 1985-86; the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-23; and several federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 245, 2261A. See ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 18-1 at 35. For relief, she asks for about ten million dollars in damages, a “retraction/clarification” and related corrective actions for false statements made about her, and “[r]einstatement of employment” or alternative additional damages. ECF No. 18-1 at 34.

About a month before Cole's deadline to complete service, the Court warned her that “to avoid the dismissal of this action,” before the service deadline she either had to serve Defendants and file proof of service or show good cause for an extension. Minute Order of November 29, 2021. Cole moved for an extension, which the Court granted. ECF No. 7; Minute Order of December 30, 2021. Cole later filed proofs of service to show that she served each defendant except Perspecta/Peraton. ECF No. 10; ECF No. 11. She also requested another extension to serve Per-specta/Peraton, which the Court granted, giving her until March 25, 2022 either to complete service and file proof of service or seek another extension of time. ECF No. 9; Minute Order of March 1, 2022. Cole did neither.

2

Meanwhile, all other defendants filed dispositive motions. Booz Allen Hamilton moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 13 at 1. CACI International moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 18 at 1.^[3] The Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA-the “Federal Defendants”-jointly moved to dismiss for improper venue and for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for summary judgment or to transfer venue. See ECF No. 26 at 1, 13. The Court ordered Cole to respond to each motion, gave her more than a month to do so, and warned her that the Court may treat the motions as conceded if she did not respond. See ECF No. 15; ECF No. 20; ECF No. 27. Cole did not respond, and it has been about a month since her latest deadline passed. See ECF No. 27.^[4]

* * *

First, the Court will dismiss Cole's claims against Perspecta/Peraton. Under Rule 4(m), if “a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . 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.” This rule gives district courts “discretion when determining whether to dismiss for failure to timely effect service.” Morrissey v. Mayorkas, 17 F.4th 1150, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The Court twice granted Cole extensions of time beyond the ninety-day deadline to serve Perspecta/Peraton and file proof of service, and the Court invited her

3

to seek a third extension by March 25, 2022, if good cause warranted one. See Minute Order of December 30, 2021; Minute Order of March 1, 2022. But Cole neither filed proof of service on Perspecta/Peraton nor moved for another extension to serve it. Her (twice-extended) deadline to do so passed about four months ago. Thus, the Court will dismiss Cole's claims against Per-specta/Peraton for failure to effect service.

Second, the Court will grant Booz Allen Hamilton's motion to dismiss. In its motion, Booz Allen Hamilton argues that Cole's claims against it should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 13-1 at 6-14. Despite the Court's order and warning, Cole has not responded to this motion. See ECF No. 15. Thus, Cole has conceded it. See, e.g., Finnegan v. Sojourn, LLC, No. 21-cv-1878 (TJK), 2021 WL 4893068, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2021) (citing LCvR 7(b)). As a result, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss Cole's claims against Booz Allen Hamilton for failure to state a claim.

Third, the Court will grant CACI International's motion to dismiss. In its motion, CACI International argues that Cole's claims against it should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 18 at 1; ECF No. 18-1 at 4-15. Despite the Court's order and warning, Cole has not responded to this motion. See ECF No. 20. Thus, Cole has conceded it. See, e.g., Finnegan, 2021 WL 4893068, at *1. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss Cole's claims against CACI International for lack of personal jurisdiction.^[5]

Fourth, the Court will dismiss Cole's claims against the Federal Defendants. In their motion, they assert that Cole sued them in their official capacities-a point that Cole's allegations bear...