Hendrix v. Barfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX, ) Case No.: 3:18-CV-00393-RCJ-WGC ) 7 Plaintiff, ) ) O PRR ED JE UR D O ICF E D PIS UM RI SS US AA NL T W TI OTH FO RU CT P 4(m) 8 ) vs. ) 9 ) ) JOSHUA BARFIELD, et al., 10 ) ) 11 Defendants. ) ) 13 The Court filed the Notice of Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 4(m) (ECF No. 52) on July 13, 2020. Plaintiff was ordered to provide the Court with proof of service as to the following parties: T. Herrera, Frazier, and J. Mason on or before August 12, 2020.

18 Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted). All five factors point in favor of dismissal.

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why these parties should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file proof of proper service with this Court || pursuant to FRCP 4(m) and failure to comply with the Notice of Intention to Dismiss * || (ECF No. 52).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants T. HERRERA, FRAZIER and J.

5 MASON are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to comply with || the Court’s Notice of Intention to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) pursuant to FRCP 4(m).

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

10 IT |S SO ORDERED.

11 Dated this 22"4 day of October, 2020.

14 ROBERT C. JGNES United States District Judge