The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles F. Eick United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RAMIREZ,
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint on January 24, 2012. The Court ordered service of the Summons and Complaint by United States Marshal on January 31, 2012. By Minute Order dated April 16, 2012, the Court directed the Clerk to re-issue an original Summons to Plaintiff, and directed Plaintiff to cooperate with the United States Marshal Service in connection with service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants. To date, the Marshals Service reportedly has been unable to serve the Summons and Complaint using the information and documentation provided by Plaintiff.
On July 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause within thirty (30) days, if there be any, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order within the allotted time.
This action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect timely service of process and for failure to prosecute.
Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on the defendants within 120 days after filing the complaint or such further time as ordered by the court. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). A pro se plaintiff in forma pauperis is entitled to rely upon the United States Marshals Service to effect proper service. See Pruett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). However, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide the Marshals Service with information necessary to identify each defendant to be served. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Brush v. Harper, 2009 WL 256380, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009), adopted by 2009 WL 902265 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2009); Schrubb v. Tilton, 2009 WL 113022, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2009). It appears that Plaintiff has failed to provide the Marshals Service with information sufficient to effect timely service of process on the Defendants.
Rule 4(m) requires the Court to extend the time for service if a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve. "At a minimum, 'good cause' means excusable neglect." Bourdette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, Plaintiff has not shown any good cause for the failure of service.
A court has "broad discretion" to extend the time for service under Rule 4(m), even absent a showing of good cause. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1040-41; see also United States v. 2,164 Watches, More or Less, Bearing a Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 4(m) gives courts "leeway to preserve meritorious lawsuits despite untimely service of process"). A court may consider various factors including prejudice to the defendant, actual notice, a possible limitations bar, and eventual service. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1041. Any such dismissal should be without prejudice. See id. at 772.
Here, the record shows no basis for extending the time for service. To the contrary, the record suggests that extending the time for service would be an idle act. Service on the Defendants evidently cannot be effected without more specific identifying information, and Plaintiff has proven unwilling or unable to provide such information. Accordingly, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Id.; see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1955) (it is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide the Marshals Service with sufficient information with which to effect service); accord Brush v. Harper, 2009 WL 256380, at *1; Schrubb v. Tilton, 2009 WL 133022, at *2.
The action also should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to file a timely response to the order to show cause, despite having been warned that such failure may result in the dismissal of the action. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be ...