Jan Marie Walker-Cook v. Scripps Health
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendant within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause after more than 190 days had elapsed without service.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the complaint without prejudice for failure to serve the defendant and failure to respond to the order to show cause.“the Court accordingly orders the complaint DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which mandates dismissal without prejudice if a defendant is not served within 90 days of filing, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for an extension. The plaintiff failed to serve the defendant within the required timeframe and failed to respond to the court's order to show cause. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) absent good cause. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the violation of Rule 4(m), provides the plaintiff an opportunity to show cause, and dismisses the case without prejudice when the plaintiff fails to respond. The citation to Ash and Link supports the court's inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution, although the primary basis for dismissal is the specific mandate of Rule 4(m).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jan Marie Walker-Cook, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01670-JAH-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 Scripps Health, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 25, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause in the above- 18 entitled matter, directing Plaintiff Jan Marie Walker-Cook (“Plaintiff”) to file a brief by 19 December 22, 2025 to explain why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure to 20 serve Defendant Scripps Health (“Defendant”). ECF No. 10. The Court found that more 21 than 90 days had elapsed without service of the Defendant, and the Court provided Plaintiff 22 with the opportunity “to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure 23 of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m).” Id. at 2. 24 In its order to show cause, the Court also indicated: “If Plaintiff fails to present good 25 cause for an additional extension, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice 26 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” While the summons and the complaint 27 must be served on a defendant “within 90 days after filing the complaint” pursuant to Rule 28 1 ||4(m), it has now been more than 190 calendar days in this case since the complaint was 2 || filed without Plaintiff's service of the Defendant. 3 Plaintiff has not submitted any briefing by the Court’s deadline of December 22, 4 ||2025, or anytime thereafter. “It 1s within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte 5 || dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) 6 || (citing to Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)). As a result, the Court finds that 7 || Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s 8 || prior order to show cause, and the Court accordingly orders the complaint DISMISSED 9 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the above-entitled 10 || matter. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || DATED: January 8, 2026 15 ye Ml sab 7 f JOHN A. HOUSTON 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28