UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NING LI, Case No. 2:25-cv-05283-SB-E

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DAVID M. RADEL,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this immigration mandamus action against the government on June 11, 2025. After Plaintiff filed deficient proof of service and the government did not respond within the 60 days, the Court ordered the government to state whether it contested service. Dkt. No. 9. The government timely stated that it did. Dkt. No. 10. The Court subsequently issued an order to show cause (OSC), providing Plaintiff until September 16, 2025 to file proper proof of service and warning him that “[f]ailure to timely respond . . . will be construed as consent to dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims.” Dkt. No. 11. Under Rule 4(m), “[i]f 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 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (court must give notice to plaintiff before sua sponte dismissal under Rule 4(m)). Despite being warned that failure to timely respond to the OSC would result in dismissal, Plaintiff has neither filed proof of service nor sought a further extension. Therefore, this action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. See Hearst v. West, 31 F. App’x 366, 370 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal under Rule 4(m) where plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to timely serve or to allege facts warranting discretionary relief). A final judgment will be issued separately.

Date: September 24, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge