1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHANNA L. STOWERS, ) Case No. CV 21-1796 FMO (SKx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 MERRICK BANK CORPORATION, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 Plaintiff Johanna L. Stowers (“plaintiff”) filed her complaint on February 22, 2021 (Dkt. 1, 18 Complaint). By order dated May 17, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, on or before May 19 24, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to complete service of the 20 summons and complaint as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See 21 Dkt. 8, Court’s Order of May 17, 2021, at 1). Plaintiff was admonished that “[f]ailure to file a timely 22 response to th[e] Order to Show Cause shall result in the action or [defendant] being dismissed 23 for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the orders of the court.” (Id.) (citing Local 24 Rule 41; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 & 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

,

, 25 1388 (1962)). As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s Order 26 of May 17, 2021, nor has she filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant. 27 (See, generally, Dkt.). 28 1 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court, on its own initiative, 2 “must dismiss the action without prejudice” if service is not effected “within 90 days after the 3 complaint is filed[.]” In addition, a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 4 to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link,

,

5 (authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases 6 and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 7 (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, 8 is a severe penalty and should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor 9 of and against this extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution 11 of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 12 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability of less 13 drastic sanctions.” Id.; Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). 14 Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) and the court’s inherent power to achieve the orderly and 15 expeditious disposition of cases, Link,

,

, and in light of the 16 factors outlined in Thompson and

dismissal of this action without prejudice for 17 failure to effect service within the specified time and comply with the Court’s Order of May 17, 18 2021 (Dkt. 8), is appropriate. 19 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 20 without prejudice, for failure to effect service and comply with the orders of the court. 21 Dated this 1st day of June, 2021. 22 /s/ 23 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28