Alina Shpak v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALINA SHPAK, Case No. 2:25-cv-04184-SB-MAA

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Alina Shpak filed this action on May 6, 2025. On May 15, the Court provided Plaintiff with a detailed description of the requirements for serving the government, ordered Plaintiff to file a proof of service by June 6, and set a status conference for June 20. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff failed to file proof of service or appear at the June 20 conference, in violation of the Court’s order. Her violations prompted an order to show cause (OSC) why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice set for a hearing on August 8. Dkt. No. 12. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a written response to the OSC and proof of service no later than August 4, warning her that “[f]ailure to timely respond to the OSC will be deemed consent to the dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants.” Id. Plaintiff timely filed a written response but failed to file proof of service or appear at the August 8 hearing. The Court thus issued a second OSC giving her one final opportunity to file proof of service by August 25. Dkt. No. 23. The OSC again warned Plaintiff that her “repeated failures to comply” including “by filing proof of service . . . provide grounds for dismissal without prejudice.” Id. at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). The August 25 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has still has not filed proof of service or otherwise responded to the Court’s orders. As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, under Rule 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The time for service has now passed, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause or provided any reason to extend the 90-day deadline. Moreover, the Court warned Plaintiff in advance that the case would be dismissed if she did not file proof of service or request an extension by August 25. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (court must give notice to plaintiff before sua sponte dismissal under Rule 4(m)). She has ignored the Court’s orders and made no attempt to demonstrate service, good cause for failing to serve timely, or any basis for granting an extension. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s warning, this action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice for failure to timely serve under Rule 4(m). See Hearst v. West, 31 F. App’x 366, 370 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal under Rule 4(m) where plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to timely serve or to allege facts warranting discretionary relief). A final judgment will be issued separately.

Date: September 2, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge