I. BACKGROUND

19 On May 28, 2021, plaintiff, who is at liberty and is proceeding pro se, paid 20 the filing fee and filed a complaint against multiple defendants including Angel 21 Sindayen and Steven Ongele. On June 2, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge 22 issued an Order Regarding Service of Process (“June Order”) advising plaintiff that 23 pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 4(m)”), 24 service of the summons and complaint must be accomplished on each defendant 25 within 90 days after filing the complaint, i.e., by August 26, 2021. (Docket No. 4). 26 The June Order directed plaintiff to file separate proof of service forms for each 27 defendant served within the 90-day period, and cautioned plaintiff that his failure 28 1 to effectuate proper service by August 26, 2021, might result in dismissal of the 2 action without prejudice as to any unserved defendant. (Docket No. 4 at 1). The 3 June Order also provided plaintiff with information about the Federal “Pro Se” 4 Clinics that offer information and guidance to individuals like plaintiff who are 5 representing themselves in federal civil actions. (Docket No. 4 at 3-4). 6 As plaintiff did not file proofs of service reflecting service upon defendants 7 Angel Sindayen and Steven Ongele by the aforementioned service deadline, the 8 Magistrate Judge, on November 9, 2021, issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) 9 directing plaintiff, within fourteen days, to show cause, if there be any, why service 10 was not timely made on defendants Angel Sindayen and Steven Ongele, and why 11 this case should not be dismissed without prejudice as against such defendants for 12 failure to effectuate service and for lack of prosecution. (Docket No. 13). The 13 OSC cautioned plaintiff that the failure timely to respond to the OSC or to show 14 cause, may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice as against such 15 defendants for failure to effectuate service and/or for lack of prosecution. (Docket 16 No. 13). 17 Plaintiff’s deadline to comply with the OSC expired on November 23, 2021. 18 To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC or proofs of service reflecting 19 that service has been made upon defendants Angel Sindayen and Steven Ongele. 20 Nor has he sought an extension of time to do so. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 Rule 4(m) provides that, if service of the summons and complaint is not 23 made upon a defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint, federal district 24 courts have the authority to sua sponte dismiss an action without prejudice, after 25 notice to the plaintiff. If, however, a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to 26 serve the complaint within that time frame, the Court must extend the time for 27 accomplishing service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The burden of establishing good 28 cause is on the plaintiff. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). 2 1 The “good cause” exception to Rule 4(m) applies “only in limited circumstances” 2 and is not satisfied by “inadvertent error or ignorance of the governing rules.” 3 Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled in part on other 4 grounds by, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). “Pro se litigants must follow 5 the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 6 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled in part on other grounds by, Lacey v. Maricopa 7 County, 693 F.3d 896 (2012) (en banc); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 8 53-54 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (failure of pro se litigant to follow procedural rules 9 justified dismissal of civil rights action), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995). 10 The June Order clearly advised plaintiff of his obligation to serve process 11 within the Rule 4(m) deadline and the consequences of failing to do so. The time 12 for effecting service of process expired in late August 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 4(m). Given the direct warning to plaintiff in the June Order, there is no cause, 14 much less good cause, for his failure to prosecute this action as against defendants 15 Sindayen and Ongele by serving them with the complaint. See Wei v. State of 16 Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (opining that Rule 4(m)’s 17 time limit “is intended to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in 18 prosecuting their causes of action,” and because plaintiff did not contend that he 19 attempted to serve defendants, was confused about the requirements of service, or 20 was prevented from effecting timely service by factors beyond his control, a 21 dismissal for failure to serve process was justified, even though plaintiff’s claim 22 therefore became time-barred). 23 The OSC afforded plaintiff a further opportunity to demonstrate good cause 24 for his failure to effect service on defendants Sindayen and Ongele and notified 25 plaintiff of the consequences of failing to do so and failing to respond to the OSC. 26 See generally Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (requiring 27 district courts to give notice to plaintiff before dismissing under Rule 4(m)). 28 Plaintiff has not responded. As a result, the Court can only assume that plaintiff 3 1 || lacks good cause for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders and with Rule 2 || 4(m). As no good cause has been established for plaintiff's failure to serve 3 || defendants Sindayen and Ongele, dismissal of this action without prejudice as 4 || against such defendants is warranted. 5] TT. ORDER 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 7 || prejudice as against defendants Angel Sindayen and Steven Ongele. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Ko Lo 10 || DATED: December 14, 2021 f i ll 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28