1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Case No.: 2:21-cv-00293-JAD-DJA 4 Estate of Victor Garcia,

5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing Case under FRCP 4(m)

6 v.

7 Stephanie Garcia, et al.,

8 Defendants

9

10 On March 23, 2022, the Court notified plaintiff that this case would be dismissed under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve any defendant if prompt action were not 12 taken. That notice advised, “this action may be dismissed without prejudice . . . unless proof of 13 service is filed with the clerk April 22, 2022. Service on the party must have taken place prior to 14 the expiration of the time limit set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), or good cause must be shown as 15 to why such service was not made in that period. Failure to comply with this notice may result in 16 dismissal of the action without prejudice as to said parties.”1 That deadline passed without 17 notice of service. 18 FRCP 4(m) requires service of the summons and complaint to be completed within 90 19 days of the complaint’s filing, and “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 20 complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss 21 the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 22 23

1 ECF No. 6. 1 specified time.”2 Rule 4(c)(1) further makes it clear that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having 2 the summons and complaint served within the time allowed under Rule 4(m).”3 3 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 4 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A

5 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 6 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to dismiss an action 7 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 8 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 9 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 10 availability of less drastic alternatives.6 11 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 12 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The 13 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 14 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading

15 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.7 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to 16 obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of 17 18

19 2 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). 20 3 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c). 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 21 5 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 22 with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 23 6 Malone,

; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61. 7 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 1|| alternatives” requirement.’ And that warning was given here.’ The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 3|| favoring dismissal. 4 Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that process has been served on any defendant 5] within the time prescribed by FRCP 4(m), IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is 6] DISMISSED without prejudice under FRCP 4(m). The Clerk of Court is directed to 7|| CLOSE THIS CASE. 8 Dated: May 3, 2022 : U.S. DistrictNludge Jenni Dorsey 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23||8 Ferdik,

; Malone,

. ECF No. 6.