Angela Espinosa v. Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04650
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELA ESPINOSA, Case No. 2:25-cv-04650-SB-MBK

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Angela Espinosa filed this action on May 22, 2025. On June 2, 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 24, and set a status conference for July 11. Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff failed to file proof of service or to appear at the July 11 conference, in violation of the Court’s order. The Court then cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file proof of proper service on Defendant in accordance with Rule 4(i) by August 20, 2025, or a proper request for an extension will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to timely serve under Rule 4(m).” Dkt. No. 8 at 1. Plaintiff—who updated her address a month ago but has not otherwise actively prosecuted this case—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 20. 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: August 27, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge