September 16,2013, A lawsuit was filed in which a defendant is the Project Director for the Virginia State Agricultural Mediation Program. Mrs. Wanda Johnson Consequently, this individual is represented by the Virginia State Attorney Generals Office by Katherine DeCoster.

October 15, 2013, The Virginia State Assistant Attorney General filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an answer.

October 15, 2013, The Virginia State Assistant Attorney General filed a Notice of appearance.

October 18, 2013 The Virginia State Assistant Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

October 21, 2013, Court Granted the motion of time to answer the complaint.

October 22.2013, Court posted and sent Plaintiffs a Roseboro Notice.

October 28, 2013 After receiving the Rosboro Notice Plaintiffs informed the Virginia State Attorney General that the motions filed from October 15 – 18 had not been served.

November 8, 2013 Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by the deadline presented on the Roseboro Notice.

November 15, 2013 Virginia State Attorney General filed a reply to the plaintiffs response.

Since November 15, 2013 theres been no activity recorded on the docket. The court has not posted any ruling on the motion.

Here is this Pro-Se Civil procedure conundrum. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b) Service How Made (2) Service in General. A paper is served under this rule by: (e)  sending it by electronic means if the person consented in writing—in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served;

Plaintiffs never consented in writing to electronic service, The court told Plaintiffs  they would not be allowed access for electronic filings. The clerk of court stated that Pro-Se litigants were never given electronic filing access. We were however, informed we could make a motion to the court for access to electronic filing.

Since plaintiffs notified the Virginia State Attorney General on October, 28, 2013 of the failure to properly serve. Does that mean that none of the motions filed by the State Attorney General are effective and therefore, none of the courts rulings on those motions including the Roseboro Notice was valid?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been no help in understanding the impact of these facts. The Plaintiffs are left currently wondering if the court with knowledge of these facts is simply ignoring the motions for failure to properly serve? Should the plaintiffs motion for judgment for failure to respond to the complaint. Should the Virginia State Attorney General  have resubmitted the motions to the court. Should the State Attorney General be subject to sanctions. Should the Federal District Court Sanction itself?

We have no desire to see this case turn in any direction on some procedural technicality.  As Pro-Se Plaintiffs we hope the court will be lenient with us on procedural matters. We only want to see Justice, Honor, and Ethical behavior and application of the Law within accordance of statues and the constitution.   Lets hope we don’t try to find the depth of a rabbit hole.

Up-Date 4-21-2017 There is no end to the depth of this rabbit hole!