I. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural History. Pursuant to the Court’s order directing service of process, the U.S. Marshals Service was unable to serve Defendant because Defendant could not be located at the address Plaintiff provided in his original Complaint. (Dkt. 17.) On November 26, 2024, the Court advised Plaintiff that, because the named defendant could not be identified for service, Plaintiff must serve one or more subpoenas duces tecum directed to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Professional Standards Division, at 320 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, California 92703, to obtain Defendant’s identifying information. (Dkt. 20.) The Court further instructed Plaintiff to file a duplicate copy of any subpoena so that it could be served by the U.S. Marshals Service. (Dkt. 29.) Despite repeated instructions spanning from January 2025 to March 2025, Plaintiff failed on multiple occasions to submit a copy of the subpoena to the Court. (See Dkts. 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36.) The Court granted Plaintiff several extensions and multiple opportunities to cure these deficiencies. (See Dkts. 29, 33, 34.) On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed two duplicate copies of a subpoena directed to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. (Dkt. 40.) On July 7, 2025, the Court ordered the issuance of a subpoena and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve it on the Professional Standards Division, at 320 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703. (Dkt. 42.) On August 22, 2025, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Professional Standards Division once again rejected service, citing deficiencies with the subpoena, including improper addressee, an expired date, and the absence of a Notice to Consumer or Employee form. (Dkt. 43.) In response, on October 9, 2025, the Court issued a detailed order explaining Plaintiff’s options regarding service of a subpoena. (Dkt. 45.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that, absent identification of a properly named defendant, the case could not proceed. (Id.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:24-cv-01617-TJH-AJR Date: January 13, 2026 Page 3 of 4

Title: Juan Antonio Pacheco v. A. Moreno

Plaintiff thereafter filed a “Revised Subpoena” on October 27, 2025. (Dkt. 46.) On November 10, 2025, the Court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the Revised Subpoena. (Dkt. 47.) The U.S. Marshals Service served the Revised Subpoena on November 13, 2025 upon Ana Molina, Staff Assistant. (Dkt. 49.) As of the date of this Order, no response to the subpoena has been received, no defendant has been identified for service, and no proof of service has been filed. B. Analysis. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve each defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If service is not timely effectuated, the Court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. Id.; see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum . . . is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (“The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”). Here, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on September 3, 2024. The deadline to effectuate service expired on December 2, 2024. More than a year has now passed since the filing of the Amended Complaint. Despite the Court’s extensive guidance, repeated extensions, and the assistance of the U.S. Marshals Service, Plaintiff has been unable to identify the sole named defendant for service. At this juncture, the Court has taken all reasonable steps to allow Plaintiff to try to move this case forward. Without identification of a properly named defendant, service cannot be effectuated, and the action cannot proceed.

II. ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than February 3, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effectuate service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). To satisfy this

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:24-cv-01617-TJH-AJR Date: January 13, 2026 Page 4 of 4

Title: Juan Antonio Pacheco v. A. Moreno

Order, Plaintiff must either: (1) file a proof of service demonstrating that the Amended Complaint, Summons, and Notice of Assignment have been properly served on the named defendant; or (2) file a written response explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely effectuate service. Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attachment: CV-09, Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c).