Caryl Danita Carby v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al.

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Caryl Danita Carby’s motion to change venue and motion for an extension of time to serve the defendants. The court found the venue request unclear and determined that an extension was unnecessary because the 90-day service period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) had not expired.

Holdings

1. The motion to change venue was denied because the requested relief was unclear, plaintiff provided no transfer arguments or alternative venue, and the requested relief appeared unnecessary.
2. The motion for an extension of time to serve defendants was denied as unnecessary because Rule 4(m) gave plaintiff 90 days from filing the complaint, resulting in a service deadline of April 16, 2026, later than the requested March 31 deadline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's motion to change venue should be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 when the requested relief is unclear, no alternative venue is identified, and no transfer arguments are presented.
2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to serve defendants when the 90-day service period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) had not expired.

Disposition

other