VISCONTI v. PINTO et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAHA VISCONTI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERT GREGORY PINTO, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-cv-00746 (JMC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 14, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Maha Visconti, filed this matter against Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court of Los Angeles County) Judge Elaine W.
Mandel, Judge Mandel’s judicial assistant Emily Sam, Plaintiff’s former attorney Albert Gregory
Pinto, Pinto’s own attorney Eric Khodadian, and 50 Doe Defendants. ECF 1 at 5–6. Plaintiff is
currently incarcerated in California. From what the Court can gather from Plaintiff’s complaint,
Plaintiff and Pinto have been opposing parties in cases filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Id. at 7–18. Judge Mandel
presided over Plaintiff’s Superior Court litigation. Id. at 6. Plaintiff challenges Judge Mandel’s
actions in that litigation and asks this Court to intervene in those matters on her behalf. See id. at
7–19, 23–24. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that all Defendants committed various torts and
violated her rights in the litigation. Id. at 2–3, 5–6, 19–23. Plaintiff believes that Defendants
conspired with Judge Mandel to somehow “manipulate” this Court into remanding a California
state case after Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to remove it to this District. See Pinto v. Visconti,
25-cv-293 (JMC) (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2025), at Min. Ord. (entered Feb. 14, 2025) (remanding case to
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County).
Case 1:25-cv-00746-JMC Document 30 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action and is not proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No.
1. She is responsible for serving Defendants. Upon receipt of her Complaint, the Clerk of Court
issued summonses to Plaintiff on March 14, 2025, and then again, at Plaintiff’s request, on March
31, 2025. See Pl.’s Request for Summonses, ECF No. 5; Clerk’s Reissuance of Summonses, ECF
No. 6. On April 24, 2024, Defendants Mandel and Sam filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules 12(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(6). ECF Nos. 8, 9. On April 25, 2025, the Court issued an
Order, directing Plaintiff to file any response to that motion by May 26, 2025 and warned her of
the consequences of failing to comply, including the risk of dismissal. See Fox Order, ECF No.
10. The Court later extended Plaintiff’s response deadline to June 27, 2025, after Plaintiff indicated
that she had not received a copy of the motion to dismiss and needed additional time to respond.
See Min. Order (entered May 28, 2025).
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss as directed. On June 30, 2025, three days
after her response deadline, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss her
claims against Judge Mandel. ECF No. 17. That filing made no reference to her claims against
Sam. On August 12, 2025, nearly two months after Plaintiff’s extended response deadline, the
Court issued a Show Cause Order, directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing, by September 12,
2025, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on her failure to
respond to Sam’s motion to dismiss and also for failure to serve the Defendants with process. ECF
No. 22 at 1–2. Plaintiff was again warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result
in dismissal. See id. After Plaintiff filed a notice claiming that she had not received the Court’s
order and needed additional time to handle this case because she was being transferred to a
different facility, ECF 23, the Court extended the show cause deadline to October 6, 2025, see
Min. Order (entered Aug. 20, 2025). In addition to reminding Plaintiff that failure to show cause
Case 1:25-cv-00746-JMC Document 30 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 5

3
would result in dismissal, the Court informed Plaintiff that additional requests to extend the show
cause deadline would be viewed with disfavor. See id.
Then, on September 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second notice of voluntary dismissal. The
notice is styled as “Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal of Defendant ‘Emily Sam’ for Voluntary
Dismissal of This Defendant Without Prejudice” but in the body of the notice Plaintiff represents
that she only intends to pursue her claims against Defendant Pinto. ECF No. 24 at 1–2 (stating that
“I am narrowing this case to the main Defendant Albert G. Pinto.”).
The Court now dismisses this action in its entirety. First, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
voluntarily dismissed her claims against Defendants Mandel and Sam under Rule 41(a)(1) and
denies those Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. ECF No. 17; ECF No. 24. Under Rule
41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action
without court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Because Plaintiff has filed
voluntary notices of dismissal against Defendants Mandel and Sam, the Court dismisses her claims
against those Defendants under Rule 41(a).1 Next, Defendant Khodadian and the Doe Defendants
have not been served and thus have not responded to Plaintiff’s complaint. Because Plaintiff’s
notice of dismissal against Defendant Sam indicated her intent to proceed only against Defendant
Pinto, Plaintiff has also dismissed Defendant Khodadian and the Doe Defendants from this action
under Rule 41(a). ECF 24 at 2.
1 “The fact that Defendant[s] ha[ve] filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
does not change the calculus. Courts have found that the filing of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim does
not affect a plaintiff's right to voluntarily dismiss his case.” Wade v. Kerner, No. 21-cv-2396 (GMH), 2022 WL
782414, at *2 (D.D.C. March 15, 2022).
Case 1:25-cv-00746-JMC Document 30 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Finally, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Pinto for failure to effect
service of process, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4(m) and D.C. Local Civil
Rule 83.23. As already discussed in the Court’s show cause order, pursuant to FRCP 4(m): “If a
defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court––on motion or on its
own after notice to the plaintiff––must dismiss the action without prejudice . . . or order that service
be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” ECF 22 at 2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m)). Here, over 250 days have gone by since Plaintiff filed this case, well beyond the 90 days
set by the rule. Plaintiff has made numerous other filings in this matter, but has never requested
the reissuance of summonses, sought additional time to serve process, or substantively responded
to the Court’s show cause order.2 See id. The Court has been generous in affording Plaintiff many
extensions because she is incarcerated, including by giving Plaintiff two months to respond to the
show cause order to explain why Pinto (or any other defendant) has not been served yet, but the
litigation has not advanced at all. Min. Order (Aug. 20, 2025). The Court’s extensions are met with
more requests for extensions, in which Plaintiff cites her inability to access her “files,” which does
not explain her inability to substantively respond to the Court’s show cause order regarding service
of process. In a recent filing seeking additional time to file a motion to reconsider the Court’s order
denying her last request for an extension, she claims that the delays in this case have been caused
by “a criminal gang who work inside [California] detention facilities . . . conspiring with criminal
and fraud artist [Defendant] Albert G. Pinto and his crew of gangsters and hackers.” ECF 29 at 2-
2 Plaintiff did file a notice that was docketed on October 10, 2025, to inform the Court that the response to the show
cause order was on its way. ECF 25. But the filings that followed were motions for extensions of time that did not
provide any information about Plaintiff’s attempts to serve process. ECF Nos. 26 and 27. On November 13, 2025,
Plaintiff also filed a notice with the Court declaring that she intended to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s October 29, 2025, minute order denying her second motion for an extension of time. ECF No. 29. This
notice also does not address the substance of the Court’s show cause order nor reference any attempt to serve
process.
Case 1:25-cv-00746-JMC Document 30 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 5

5
3. She does not mention anything about her efforts to serve Pinto, but to the extent that is Plaintiff’s
explanation for failing to take any steps to serve or prosecute her claims against the remaining
Defendant, the Court does not find good cause for an additional extension. If Plaintiff is not in a
position to litigate this case, she can refile at a later time subject to any statute of limitations.
So, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants Mandel and Sam’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF
No. 8, is DENIED as moot because Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss her claims against them.
It is further ORDERED that the Court hereby DISMISSES this matter in full, and the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case. The Clerk of Court is further
DIRECTED to reflect Plaintiff’s updated address, see Notice (Nov. 7, 2025), ECF No. 28, on the
docket, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her updated address of record.
Date: November 21, 2025. __________________________
JIA M. COBB
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00746-JMC Document 30 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 5