Opinion
No. 2:19-cv-460-KJM-EFB PS
10-24-2019
HASAN AHMAD HASAN ABDULRAZEQ, Plaintiff, v. EMBASSY REPUBLIC OF LIBYA, Defendant.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A status (pretrial scheduling) conference was previously set for August 28, 2019. The order directed plaintiff to complete service of process on defendant within 90 days and to serve a copy of the order concurrently with service of the summons and complaint. The order also directed the parties to file status reports fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. ECF No. 3
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 302(b)(1).
Plaintiff did not timely file a status report, nor did he file a proof of service demonstrating that defendant was properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) (requiring that proof of service be made to the court). Accordingly, the scheduling conference was continued to October 30, 2019, and plaintiff was directed to show cause, by no later than September 18, 2019, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service of process and/or failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 6. The parties were also ordered to file, by no later than October 16, 2019, a status report setting forth the matters referenced in the court's March 14, 2019 order, including the status of service of process. Id. at 2. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id.
To date, defendant has not appeared in this action.
The deadlines have passed, and plaintiff has not filed a status report, nor otherwise responded to the court's order. Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that he has attempted to serve defendant, nor has he shown cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service of process. Accordingly, dismissal for failure to timely effect service of process in the time set forth in the court's March 14, 2019 order is appropriate. See Adetoro v. King Abdullah Academy, 2019 WL 3457989, at *3 (D.D.C. July 30, 2019) (while Rule 4(m)'s deadline do not apply to service on a foreign state or its political subdivisions, dismissal for lack of service is appropriate where plaintiff has not sought to serve the foreign party or there is no reasonable prospect that service could be obtained); Sport Lisboa e Benfica-Futbol SAD v. Doe 1, 2018 WL 4043182, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) (in instances where the deadline set by Rule 4(m) for completing service does not apply, "the court may set a reasonable time limit for service in a foreign country to properly manage a civil case.") (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the October 30, 2019 scheduling conference is vacated.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and complete service of process; and
2. The Clerk be directed to close the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: October 24, 2019.
/s/_________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE